Page Range | 32987-33438 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 33437 - Captive Nations Week, 2017 | |
82 FR 33159 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
82 FR 33009 - Special Enrollment Examination User Fee for Enrolled Agents | |
82 FR 32987 - Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2017 Numerical Limitation for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker Program | |
82 FR 33106 - Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance With the Disposal Regulations; Recertification Decision | |
82 FR 33123 - Proposal To Withdraw Proposed Determination To Restrict the Use of an Area as a Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska | |
82 FR 33197 - Notice of Changes to SBA Secondary Market Program | |
82 FR 33143 - Oklahoma; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 33141 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget | |
82 FR 33144 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 33151 - Filing of Plat Survey; Eastern States | |
82 FR 33152 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Mount Hope Project, Eureka County, Nevada | |
82 FR 33126 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 33125 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
82 FR 33191 - Northern Lights Fund Trust and Toews Corporation | |
82 FR 33049 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review | |
82 FR 33204 - Fund Availability Under the Grants for Transportation of Veterans in Highly Rural Areas Program | |
82 FR 33200 - Portland Vancouver Junction Railroad, LLC-Operation Exemption-Rail Lines of Columbia Business Center, Clark County, Wash. | |
82 FR 33026 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
82 FR 33122 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands | |
82 FR 33125 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
82 FR 33142 - Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
82 FR 33166 - New Postal Products | |
82 FR 33137 - Findings of Research Misconduct | |
82 FR 33202 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; General Electric Company | |
82 FR 33201 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Rolls-Royce plc | |
82 FR 33042 - Notice of Intent To Request an Early Revision and Merger of Two Currently Approved Information Collections | |
82 FR 33131 - Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings; Green Building Advisory Committee; Notification of Upcoming Conference Calls | |
82 FR 33129 - Submission for OMB Review; FSRS Registration Requirements for Prime Grant Awardees | |
82 FR 33137 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 33138 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 33138 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 33068 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 33079 - Defense Business Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 33200 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Nonimmigrant Visa Application | |
82 FR 33130 - Submission for OMB Review; FFATA Subaward and Executive Compensation Reporting Requirements | |
82 FR 33161 - GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC; GE-Hitachi Morris Operation Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
82 FR 33160 - New ListServ for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) Program Documents | |
82 FR 33159 - Strata Energy, Inc.; Ross Uranium In Situ Recovery Facility; Source and Byproduct Materials License | |
82 FR 33050 - Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
82 FR 33054 - Ripe Olives From Spain: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
82 FR 33047 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Rescission and Notice of Amended Final Results | |
82 FR 33059 - Narrow Woven Ribbon With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Administrative Review and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
82 FR 33068 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 33156 - Certain Hand Dryers and Housings for Hand Dryers; Commission Determination To Review In-Part an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion for Summary Determination of Section 337 Violation by the Defaulting Respondents | |
82 FR 33161 - STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 | |
82 FR 33202 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Associated With Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards, and Monitoring | |
82 FR 33080 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; an Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Behavior (MTSS-B) | |
82 FR 33199 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Online Application for Nonimmigrant Visa | |
82 FR 33099 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of New Shunxiang Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd., From the Department of Energy Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, Freezer Test Procedures | |
82 FR 33081 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC From the Department of Energy Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Test Procedures and Grant of Interim Waiver | |
82 FR 33040 - Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
82 FR 33139 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget | |
82 FR 33138 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget | |
82 FR 33035 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination on the Proposed Threatened Status for Chorizanthe parryi | |
82 FR 33044 - Limited-Access Highway Classification Codes | |
82 FR 33158 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection; Notification of Change of Mailing or Premise Address | |
82 FR 33024 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reapportionment of the 2017 Gulf of Alaska Pacific Halibut Prohibited Species Catch Limits for the Trawl Deep-Water and Shallow-Water Fishery Categories | |
82 FR 33125 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10165-Peoples First Community Bank, Panama City, Florida | |
82 FR 33134 - Announcement of the Award of Five Single-Source Low-Cost Extension Supplement Grants Within the Office of Refugee Resettlement's Unaccompanied Alien Children's (UAC) Program | |
82 FR 33140 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-New | |
82 FR 33198 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) Status | |
82 FR 33136 - Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children | |
82 FR 33043 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Retail Trade Survey | |
82 FR 33165 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Reporting (Form 5500 Series) | |
82 FR 33070 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
82 FR 33152 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District; Correction | |
82 FR 33153 - Notice of Inventory Completion: History Colorado, Formerly Colorado Historical Society, Denver, CO | |
82 FR 33155 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District, Nashville, TN | |
82 FR 33071 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
82 FR 33192 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.38 To Specify the Ranking of an Odd Lot Order That Has a Display Price That Is Better Than Its Working Price | |
82 FR 33194 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule | |
82 FR 33189 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Update Rule Cross-References and Make Non-Substantive Technical Changes to FINRA Rules | |
82 FR 33187 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7018 | |
82 FR 33170 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Rules That Describe the Trading of Complex Orders on the Exchange for the Exchange's Equity Options Platform | |
82 FR 33168 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees To Assess Connectivity Fees | |
82 FR 33072 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 33105 - Great Bay Solar 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
82 FR 33101 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 33126 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules | |
82 FR 33074 - Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 33069 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
82 FR 33101 - Cube Yadkin Generation, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
82 FR 33102 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-510, FERC-520, FERC-561, and FERC-583); Comment Request | |
82 FR 33151 - Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 33149 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 33148 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 33146 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 33132 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33167 - Notice of Availability: Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Commercial Off-the-Shelf Vehicle Acquisitions, Nationwide | |
82 FR 33168 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 33133 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33198 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Dakota | |
82 FR 33197 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New York | |
82 FR 33201 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Mr. Edward Silva | |
82 FR 33036 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Omnibus Acceptable Biological Catch Framework Adjustment | |
82 FR 33076 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 33131 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 33072 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Financial Management Survey | |
82 FR 33040 - Information Collection Request; Certified State Mediation Program | |
82 FR 33064 - Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Winter-Run Puget Sound Chum Salmon in the Nisqually River System and Chambers Creek as a Threatened or Endangered Evolutionarily Significant Unit Under the Endangered Species Act | |
82 FR 33032 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District | |
82 FR 33026 - Air Plan Approval; ME; Consumer Products Alternative Control Plan | |
82 FR 33030 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District | |
82 FR 33012 - Air Plan Approval; Maine; Motor Vehicle Fuel Requirements | |
82 FR 33014 - Air Plan Approval; ME; Consumer Products Alternative Control Plan | |
82 FR 33135 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Extension of the Certification of Maintenance of Effort for Title III and Certification of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Expenditures | |
82 FR 33048 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances | |
82 FR 33061 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Poland: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
82 FR 33062 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Mexico: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
82 FR 33045 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part | |
82 FR 33016 - Administrative Amendments to Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation | |
82 FR 33105 - Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board; Notice of Charter Renewal | |
82 FR 33041 - Deschutes National Forest; Deschutes and Klamath Counties, Oregon; Ringo Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Forest Plan Amendment | |
82 FR 33000 - Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2017; Corrections | |
82 FR 33002 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 33007 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 33004 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
82 FR 33210 - Arbitration Agreements |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security and Employment and Training Administration and Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Temporary rule.
The Secretary of Homeland Security (“Secretary”), in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, has decided to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas to authorize the issuance of up to an additional 15,000 through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. This is a one-time increase based on a time-limited statutory authority and does not affect the H-2B program in future fiscal years. The Departments are promulgating regulations to implement this determination.
This final rule is effective from July 19, 2017 through September 30, 2017, except for the addition of 20 CFR 655.65, which is effective from July 19, 2017 through September 30, 2020.
Regarding 8 CFR part 214: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Ave NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529-2120, telephone (202) 272-8377 (not a toll-free call). Regarding 20 CFR part 655: William W. Thompson, II, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, Box #12-200, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes the H-2B nonimmigrant classification for a nonagricultural temporary worker “having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform . . . temporary [non-agricultural] service or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Employers must petition DHS for classification of prospective temporary workers as H-2B nonimmigrants. INA section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1). DHS must approve this petition before the beneficiary can be considered eligible for an H-2B visa. Finally, the INA requires that “[t]he question of importing any alien as [an H-2B] nonimmigrant . . . in any specific case or specific cases shall be determined by [DHS],
DHS regulations provide that an H-2B petition for temporary employment in the United States must be accompanied by an approved temporary labor certification (TLC) from DOL. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A) & (C), (iv)(A). The TLC serves as DHS's consultation with DOL with respect to whether a qualified U.S. worker is available to fill the petitioning H-2B employer's job opportunity and whether a foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
The Departments have established regulatory procedures under which DOL certifies whether a qualified U.S. worker is available to fill the job opportunity described in the employer's petition for a temporary nonagricultural worker, and whether a foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
The INA also authorizes DHS to impose appropriate remedies against an employer for a substantial failure to meet the terms and conditions of employing an H-2B nonimmigrant worker, or for a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in a petition for an H-2B nonimmigrant worker. INA section 214(c)(14)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(A). The INA expressly authorizes DHS to delegate certain enforcement authority to DOL. INA section 214(c)(14)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(B). DHS has delegated this authority to DOL.
The INA sets the annual number of aliens who may be issued H-2B visas or otherwise provided H-2B nonimmigrant status to perform temporary nonagricultural work at 66,000, to be distributed semi-annually beginning in October and in April.
Because of the intense competition for H-2B visas in recent years, the semi-annual visa allocation, and the regulatory requirement that employers apply for labor certification 75 to 90 days before the start date of work,
On May 5, 2017, the President signed the FY 2017 Omnibus, which contains a provision (section 543 of division F, hereinafter “section 543”) permitting the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances and after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to increase the number of H-2B visas available to U.S. employers, notwithstanding the otherwise established statutory numerical limitation. Specifically, section 543 provides that “the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and upon the determination that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied in [FY] 2017 with U.S. workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor,” may increase the total number of aliens who may receive an H-2B visa in FY 2017 by not more than the highest number of H-2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H-2B returning worker program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were exempt from the H-2B numerical limitation.
The Departments have determined that it is appropriate to issue this final rule jointly. This determination is related to ongoing litigation following conflicting court decisions concerning DOL's authority to independently issue legislative rules to carry out its consultative function pertaining to the H-2B program under the INA.
Following consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that the needs of some American businesses cannot be satisfied in FY 2017 with U.S. workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor. In accordance with the FY 2017 Omnibus, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that it is appropriate, for the reasons stated below, to raise the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas by up to an additional 15,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Consistent with such authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security has decided to increase the H-2B cap for FY 2017 by up to 15,000 additional visas for those American businesses that attest to a level of need such that, if they do not receive all of the workers under the cap increase, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm,
The Secretary of Homeland Security's determination to increase the numerical limitation is based on the conclusion that some businesses face closing their doors in the absence of a cap increase. Some stakeholders have reported that access to additional H-2B visas is essential to the continued viability of some small businesses that play an important role in sustaining the economy in their states, while others have stated that an increase is unnecessary and raises the possibility of abuse.
The decision to direct the benefits of this one-time cap increase to businesses that need workers to avoid irreparable harm, rather than directing the cap increase to any and all businesses seeking temporary workers, is consistent with the Secretary's broad discretion under section 543. Section 543 provides that the Secretary, upon satisfaction of the statutory business need standard,
First, DHS interprets section 543's reference to “the needs of American businesses” as describing a need different than the need required of employers in petitioning for an H-2B worker.
Second, this approach limits the one-time increase in a way that is responsive to stakeholders who, citing potential adverse impacts on U.S. workers from a general cap increase applicable to all potential employers, sought opportunities for more formal input and analysis prior to such an increase. Although the calendar does not lend itself to such additional efforts, the Secretary has determined that in the unique circumstances presented here, it is appropriate to tailor the availability of this temporary cap increase to those businesses likely to suffer irreparable harm,
Under this rule, employers must also meet, among other requirements, the generally applicable requirements that insufficient qualified U.S. workers are available to fill the petitioning H-2B employer's job opportunity and that the foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. INA section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1); 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A) and (D); 20 CFR 655.1. To meet this standard, in order to be eligible for additional visas under this rule, employers must have a valid TLC in accordance with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A) and (D), and 20 CFR 655 subpart A. Under DOL's H-2B regulations, TLCs expire on the last day of authorized employment. 20 CFR 655.55(a). Therefore, in order to have an unexpired TLC, the date on the employer's visa petition must not be later than the last day of authorized employment on the TLC. This rule also requires an additional recruitment for certain petitioners, as discussed below.
Accordingly, this rule increases the FY 2017 numerical limitation by up to 15,000 to ensure a sufficient number of visas to meet the level of demand in past years, but also restricts the availability of such visas by prioritizing only the most significant business needs. These provisions are each described in turn below.
DHS expects the increase of up to 15,000 visas
Most recently, in FY 2016, 18,090 returning workers were approved for H-2B petitions, despite Congress having reauthorized the returning worker program with more than three-quarters of the fiscal year remaining. Of those 18,090 workers authorized for admission, 13,382 were admitted into the United States or otherwise acquired H-2B status. While section 543 does not limit the issuance of additional H-2B visas to returning workers, the Secretary, in consideration of the statute's reference to returning workers, determined that it would be appropriate to use these recent figures as a basis for the maximum numerical limitation under section 543. This rule therefore authorizes up to 15,000 additional H-2B visas (rounded up from 13,382) for FY 2017.
To file an H-2B petition during the remainder of FY 2017, petitioners must meet all existing H-2B eligibility requirements, including having an approved, valid and unexpired TLC per 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6) and 20 CFR 655 subpart A. In addition, the petitioner must submit an attestation in which the petitioner affirms, under penalty of perjury, that it meets the business need standard set forth above. Under that standard, the petitioner must be able to establish that if they do not receive all of the workers under the cap increase, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm, that is, permanent and severe financial loss. Although the TLC process focuses on establishing whether a petitioner has a need for workers, the TLC does not directly address the harm a petitioner may face in the absence of such workers; the attestation addresses this question. The attestation must be submitted directly to USCIS, together with the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), the valid TLC, and any other necessary documentation. The new attestation form is included in this rulemaking as Appendix A.
The attestation serves as prima facie initial evidence to DHS that the petitioner's business is likely to suffer irreparable harm.
In addition to the statement regarding the irreparable harm standard, the attestation will also state that the employer: Meets all other eligibility criteria for the available visas; will comply with all assurances, obligations, and conditions of employment set forth in the
The requirement to provide a post-TLC attestation to USCIS is sufficiently protective of U.S. workers given that the employer, in completing the TLC process, has already made one unsuccessful attempt to recruit U.S. workers. In addition, the employer is required to retain documentation, which must be provided upon request, supporting the new attestations, including a recruitment report for any additional recruitment required under this rule. Accordingly, USCIS may issue a denial or a request for additional evidence in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b) or 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11) based on such documentation, and DOL's WHD will be able to review this documentation and enforce the attestations. Although the employer must have such documentation on hand at the time it files the petition, the Departments have determined that if employers were required to submit the attestations to DOL before seeking a petition from DHS or to complete all recruitment before submitting a petition, the attendant delays would render any visas unlikely to satisfy the needs of American businesses given processing timeframes and that there are only a few months remaining in this fiscal year.
In accordance with the attestation requirement, whereby petitioners attest that they meet the irreparable harm standard, and the documentation retention requirements at 20 CFR 655.65, the petitioner must retain documents and records meeting their burden to demonstrate compliance with this rule, and must provide the documents and records upon the request of DHS or DOL, such as in the event of an audit or investigation. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following types of documentation:
(1) Evidence that the business is or would be unable to meet financial or contractual obligations without H-2B workers, including evidence of contracts, reservations, orders, or other business arrangements that have been or would be cancelled absent the requested H-2B workers; and evidence demonstrating an inability to pay debts/bills;
(2) Evidence that the business has suffered or will suffer permanent and severe financial loss during the period of need, as compared to the period of need in prior years, such as: Financial statements (including profit/loss statements) comparing present period of need as compared to prior years; bank statements, tax returns or other documents showing evidence of current and past financial condition; relevant tax records, employment records, or other similar documents showing hours worked and payroll comparisons from prior years to current year;
(3) Evidence showing the number of workers needed in previous seasons to meet the employer's temporary need as compared to those currently employed, including the number of H-2B workers requested, the number of H-2B workers actually employed, the dates of their employment, and their hours worked (
(4) Evidence that the business is dependent on H-2B workers, such as: Number of H-2B workers compared to U.S. workers needed prospectively or in the past; business plan or reliable forecast showing that, due to the nature and size of the business, there is a need for a specific number of H-2B workers.
These examples of potential evidence, however, will not exclusively or necessarily establish that the business meets the irreparable harm standard, and petitioners may retain other types of evidence they believe will satisfy this standard. If an audit or investigation occurs, DHS or DOL will review all evidence available to it to confirm that the petitioner properly attested to DHS that their business would likely suffer irreparable harm. If DHS subsequently finds that the evidence does not support the employer's attestation, DHS may deny or revoke the petition consistent with existing regulatory authorities and/or notify DOL. In addition, DOL may independently take enforcement action, including, among other things, to debar the petitioner from using the H-2B program generally for not less than one year or more than 5 years from the date of the final agency decision and may disqualify the debarred party from filing any labor certification applications or labor condition applications with DOL for the same period set forth in the final debarment decision.
To the extent that evidence reflects a preference for hiring H-2B workers over U.S. workers, an investigation by other agencies enforcing employment and labor laws, such as the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, may be warranted.
DHS, in exercising its statutory authority under INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), and section 543, is responsible for adjudicating eligibility for H-2B classification. As in all cases, the burden rests with the petitioner to establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, as noted above, where the petition lacks initial evidence, such as a properly completed attestation, DHS may deny the petition in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(ii). Further, where the initial evidence submitted with the petition contains inconsistencies or is inconsistent with other evidence in the petition and underlying TLC, DHS may issue a Request for Evidence, Notice of Intent to Deny, or Denial in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8). In addition, where it is determined that an H-2B petition filed pursuant to the FY 2017 Omnibus was granted erroneously, the H-2B petition approval may be revoked,
Because of the unique circumstances of this regulation, and because the attestation plays a vital role in achieving the purposes of this regulation, DHS and DOL intend that the attestation requirement be non-severable from the remainder of the regulation. Thus, in the event the attestation requirement is enjoined or held invalid, the remainder of the regulation, with the exception of the retention requirements, is also intended to cease operation in the relevant jurisdiction, without prejudice to workers already present in the United States under this regulation, as consistent with law.
To petition for H-2B workers under this rule, the petitioner must file a Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, Form-129 in accordance with applicable regulations and form instructions, and must submit the attestation described above. The attestation must be filed on Form ETA-9142-B-CAA,
To encourage timely filing of any petition seeking a visa under the FY 2017 Omnibus, DHS is notifying the public that the petition may not be approved by USCIS on or after October 1, 2017.
USCIS's current processing goals for H-2B petitions that can be adjudicated without the need for further evidence (
As with other Form I-129 filings, DHS encourages petitioners to provide a duplicate copy of Form I-129 and all supporting documentation at the time of filing if the beneficiary is seeking a nonimmigrant visa abroad. Failure to submit duplicate copies may cause a delay in the issuance of a visa to otherwise eligible applicants.
Because all employers are required to have an approved and valid TLC from DOL in order to file a Form I-129 petition with DHS in accordance with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A) and (D), employers with an approved TLC will have already conducted recruitment, as
Therefore, employers with still valid TLCs with a start date of work before June 1, 2017, will be required to conduct additional recruitment, and attest that the recruitment will be conducted, as follows. The employer must place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency (SWA), serving the area of intended employment. The job order must contain the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment, and remain posted for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for H-2B worker to USCIS. In addition, eligible employers will also be required to place one newspaper advertisement, which may be published on any day of the week, meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance. Employers must retain the additional recruitment documentation, including a recruitment report that meets the requirements for recruitment reports set forth in 20 CFR 655.48(a)(1)(2) & (7), together with a copy of the attestation and supporting documentation, as described above, for a period of 3 years from the date that the TLC was approved, consistent with the document retention requirements under 20 CFR 655.56. These requirements are similar to those that apply to seafood employers who bring in additional workers between 90 and 120 days after their certified start date of need under 20 CFR 655.15(f).
The employer must hire any qualified U.S. worker who applies or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted. The two business day requirement permits an additional brief period of time to enable U.S. workers to contact the employer following the job order or newspaper advertisement. Consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.
DOL's Wage and Hour Division has the authority to investigate the employer's attestations, as the attestations are a required part of the H-2B petition process under this rule and the attestations rely on the employer's existing, approved TLC. Where a WHD investigation determines that there has been a willful misrepresentation of a material fact or a substantial failure to meet the required terms and conditions of the attestations, WHD may institute administrative proceedings to impose sanctions and remedies, including (but not limited to) assessment of a civil money penalty, recovery of wages due, make whole relief for any U.S. worker who has been improperly rejected for employment, laid off or displaced, or debarment for 1 to 5 years.
Petitioners must also comply with any other applicable laws in their recruitment, such as avoiding unlawful discrimination against U.S. workers based on their citizenship status or national origin. Specifically, the failure to recruit and hire qualified and available U.S. workers on account of such individuals' national origin or citizenship status may violate INA section 274B, 8 U.S.C. 1324b.
This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity to comment and with an immediate effective date pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d).
The APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The good cause exception for forgoing notice and comment rulemaking “excuses notice and comment in emergency situations, or where delay could result in serious harm.”
In this case, the Departments are bypassing advance notice and comment because of the exigency created by section 543 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (FY 2017 Omnibus), which went into effect on May 5, 2017 and expires on September 30, 2017. Because the statutory cap was reached in mid-March, USCIS stopped accepting H-2B petitions on March 13, 2017, and given high demand by American businesses for H-2B workers, and the short period of time remaining in the fiscal year for U.S. employers to avoid the economic harms described above, a decision to undertake notice and comment rulemaking would likely delay final action on this matter by weeks or months, and would therefore complicate and likely preclude the Departments from successfully exercising the authority in section 543.
Courts have found “good cause” under the APA when an agency is moving expeditiously to avoid significant economic harm to a program, program users, or an industry. Courts have held that an agency may use the good cause exception to address “a serious threat to the financial stability of [a government] benefit program,”
Consistent with the above authorities, the Departments have bypassed notice and comment to prevent the “serious economic harm to the H-2B community,” including associated U.S. workers, that could result from ongoing uncertainty over the status of the numerical limitation,
The APA also authorizes agencies to make a rule effective immediately, upon a showing of good cause instead of imposing a 30-day delay. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The good cause exception to the 30-day effective date requirement is easier to meet than the good cause exception for foregoing notice and comment rulemaking.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2016 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer (CPI-U) is $157 million.
This rule does not exceed the $100 million expenditure in any 1 year when adjusted for inflation ($157 million in 2016 dollars), and this rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply, and the Departments have not prepared a statement under the Act.
This temporary rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 804, 110 Stat. 847, 872 (1996), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule has not been found to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic or export markets.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” although not an economically significant regulatory action. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this regulation. This regulation is exempt from Executive Order 13771. OMB considers this final rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
With this final rule, DHS is authorizing up to an additional 15,000 visas for the remainder of FY 2017, pursuant to the FY 2017 Omnibus, to be available to certain U.S. businesses under the H-2B visa classification. By the authority given under the FY 2017 Omnibus, DHS is increasing the H-2B cap for the remainder of FY 2017 for those businesses that: (1) Show that there are an insufficient number of qualified U.S. workers to meet their needs in FY 2017; and (2) attest that their businesses are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the ability to employ the H-2B workers that are the subject of their petition. This final rule aims to help prevent such harm by allowing them to hire additional H-2B workers within FY 2017. Table 1 (below) provides a brief summary of the provision and its impact.
The H-2B visa classification program was designed to serve U.S. businesses that are unable to find a sufficient number of qualified U.S. workers to perform nonagricultural work of a temporary or seasonal nature. For an H-2B nonimmigrant worker to be admitted into the United States under this visa classification, the hiring employer is required to: (1) Receive a TLC from DOL and (2) file a Form I-129 with DHS. The temporary nature of the services or labor described on the approved TLC is subject to DHS review during adjudication of Form I-129.
The H-2B cap for the second half of FY 2017 was reached on March 13, 2017. Normally, once the H-2B cap has been reached, petitioners must wait until the next half of the fiscal year, or the beginning of the next fiscal year, for additional visas to become available. However, on May 5, 2017, the President signed the FY 2017 Omnibus that contains a provision (Sec. 543 of Div. F) authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances, to increase the number of H-2B visas available to U.S. employers, notwithstanding the established statutory numerical limitation. After consulting with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Homeland Security has determined it is appropriate to exercise his discretion and raise the H-2B cap by up to an additional 15,000 visas for the remainder of FY 2017 for those businesses who would qualify under certain circumstances.
This temporary rule would impact those employers who file Form I-129 on behalf of the nonimmigrant worker they seek to hire under the H-2B visa program. More specifically, this rule would impact those employers who could establish that their business is likely to suffer irreparable harm because they cannot employ the H-2B workers requested on their petition in this fiscal year. Due to the temporary nature of this rule and the limited time left for these additional visas to be available, DHS believes it is more reasonable to assume that eligible petitioners for these additional 15,000 visas will be those employers that have already completed the steps to receive an approved TLC prior to the issuance of this rule.
The costs for this form include filing costs and the opportunity costs of time to complete and file the form. The current filing fee for Form I-129 is $460 and the estimated time needed to complete and file Form I-129 for H-2B classification is 4.26 hours.
To estimate the total opportunity cost of time to petitioners who complete and file Form I-129, DHS uses the mean hourly wage rate of HR specialists of $31.20 as the base wage rate.
As mentioned in
Employers may use Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, to request faster processing of their Form I-129 petitions for H-2B visas. The filing fee for Form I-907 is $1,225 and the time burden for completing the form is 0.5 hours. Using the wage rates established previously, the opportunity cost of time is $22.78 for an HR specialist to file Form I-907, $49.10 for an in-house lawyer to file, and $84.07 for an outsourced lawyer to file.
The remaining provisions of this rule include a new form for applicants, Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-Attestation for Admission of H-2B Workers, attached to this rulemaking as Appendix A.
The new attestation form includes new recruiting requirements, the irreparable harm standard, and document retention obligations. DOL estimates the time burden for completing and signing the form is 0.25 hour and 1 hour for retaining documents and records relating to recruitment. The petitioner must retain documents and records of a new job order for the job opportunity placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) and one newspaper advertisement. DOL estimates that it would take up to one hour to file and retain documents and records relating to recruitment. Using the total per hour wage for an HR specialist ($45.55), the opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist to complete the new attestation form and to retain documents relating to recruitment is $56.94.
Additionally, the new form requires that the petitioner assess and document supporting evidence for meeting the irreparable harm standard, and retain those documents and records, which we assume will require the resources of a financial analyst (or another equivalent occupation). Using the same methodology previously described for wages, the total per hour wage for a financial analyst is $68.53.
As discussed previously, we believe that the estimated 2,298 remaining unfilled certifications for the latter half of FY 2017 would include all potential employers who might request to employ H-2B workers under this rule. This number of certifications is a reasonable proxy for the number of employers who may need to review and sign the attestation. Using this estimate for the total number of certifications, DOL
Employers will place a new job order for the job opportunity with the SWA serving the area of intended employment for at least 5 days beginning no later than the next business day after submitting a petition for an H-2B worker and the attestation to USCIS. DOL estimates that an HR specialist (or another equivalent occupation) would spend 1 hour to prepare a new job order and submit it to the SWA.
Employers will also place one newspaper advertisement during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance. DOL estimates that a standard job listing in an online edition of a newspaper is $250.
Therefore, the total cost for the new attestation form is estimated to be $1,597,426.
DHS anticipates some additional costs in adjudicating the additional petitions submitted as a result of the increase in cap limitation for H-2B visas. However, DHS expects these costs to be covered by the fees associated with the forms.
The inability to access H-2B workers for these entities may cause their businesses to suffer irreparable harm. Temporarily increasing the number of available H-2B visas for this fiscal year may allow some businesses to hire the additional labor resources necessary to avoid such harm. Preventing such harm may ultimately rescue the jobs of any other employees (including U.S. employees) at that establishment.
This rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order No. 13132, 64 FR 43,255 (Aug. 4, 1999), this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).
DHS analyzes actions to determine whether NEPA applies to them and if so what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes the procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The CEQ regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) which experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 1508.4. DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes such Categorical Exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically excluded, DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the Categorical Exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Inst. 023-01 Rev. 01 section V.B (1)-(3).
This rule temporarily amends the regulations implementing the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas for the remainder of FY 2017 based on the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, consistent with the FY 2017 Omnibus. Generally, a rule which changes the number of visas which can be issued has no impact on the environment and any attempt to analyze that impact would be largely, if not completely, speculative. The Departments cannot estimate with reasonable certainty which employers will successfully petition for employees in what locations and numbers. At most, however, it is reasonably foreseeable that an increase of up to15,000 visas may be issued for temporary entry into the United States in diverse industries and locations. For purposes of the cost estimates contained in the economic analysis above, DHS bases its calculations on the assumption that all 15,000 will be issued. Even making that assumption, with a current U.S. population in excess of 323 million and a U.S. land mass of 3.794 million square miles, this is insignificant by any measure.
DHS has determined that this rule does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and it thus would fit within one categorical exclusion under Environmental Planning Program, DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1. Specifically, the rule fits within Categorical Exclusion number A3(d) for rules that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect.
This rule maintains the current human environment by helping to prevent irreparable harm to certain U.S. businesses and to prevent a significant adverse effect on the human environment that would likely result from loss of jobs and income. With the exception of recordkeeping requirements, this rulemaking terminates after September 30, 2017; it is not part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental effects. No further NEPA analysis is required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
More specifically, this rule includes a new form (
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange programs, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
Administrative practice and procedure, Employment, Employment and training, Enforcement, Foreign workers, Forest and forest products, Fraud, Health professions, Immigration, Labor, Longshore and harbor work, Migrant workers, Nonimmigrant workers, Passports and visas, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment, Wages, Working conditions.
For the reasons discussed in the joint preamble, part 214 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.
(h) * * *
(6) * * *
(x)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the joint preamble, 20 CFR part 655 is amended as follows:
Section 655.0 issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii), 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) and (ii), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(6), 1182(m), (n) and (t), 1184(c), (g), and (j), 1188, and 1288(c) and (d); sec. 3(c)(1), Pub. L. 101-238, 103 Stat. 2099, 2102 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); sec. 221(a), Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note); sec. 303(a)(8), Pub. L. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); sec. 323(c), Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2428; sec. 412(e), Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
Subpart A issued under 8 CFR 214.2(h).
Subpart B issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c), and 1188; and 8 CFR 214.2(h).
Subparts F and G issued under 8 U.S.C. 1288(c) and (d); sec. 323(c), Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2428; and 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, Pub. L. 114-74 at section 701.
Subparts H and I issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (b)(1), 1182(n) and (t), and 1184(g) and (j); sec. 303(a)(8), Pub. L. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); sec. 412(e), Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; 8 CFR 214.2(h); and 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, Pub. L. 114-74 at section 701.
Subparts L and M issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c) and 1182(m); sec. 2(d), Pub. L. 106-95, 113 Stat. 1312, 1316 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); Pub. L. 109-423, 120 Stat. 2900; and 8 CFR 214.2(h).
An employer filing a petition with USCIS under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x) to employ H-2B workers from July 19, 2017 through September 15, 2017 must meet the following requirements:
(a) The employer must attest on Form ETA-9142-B-CAA that without the ability to employ all of the H-2B workers requested on the petition filed pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x), its business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), and that the employer will provide documentary evidence of this fact to DHS or DOL upon request.
(b) An employer with a start date of work before June 1, 2017 on its approved Temporary Labor Certification, must conduct additional recruitment of U.S. workers as follows:
(1) The employer must place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency, serving the area of intended employment. The job order must contain the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment, and remain posted for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for H-2B worker(s); and
(2) The employer must place one newspaper advertisement on any day of the week meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the State Workforce Agency is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance; and
(3) The employer must hire any qualified U.S. worker who applies or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.
(c) This section expires on October 1, 2017.
(d)
(a) An employer that files a petition with USCIS to employ H-2B workers in fiscal year 2017 under authority of the temporary increase in the numerical limitation under Public Law 115-31 must maintain for a period of 3 years from the date of certification, consistent with 20 CFR 655.56 and 29 CFR 503.17, the following:
(1) A copy of the attestation filed pursuant to regulations governing that temporary increase;
(2) Evidence establishing that employer's business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), if it cannot employ H-2B nonimmigrant workers in fiscal year 2017;
(3) If applicable, evidence of additional recruitment and a recruitment report that meets the requirements set forth in 20 CFR 655.48(a)(1), (2), and (7).
DOL or DHS may inspect these documents upon request.
(b) This section expires on October 1, 2020.
By virtue of my signature below, I
(A) I am an employer with an approved labor certification from the Department of Labor seeking permission to employ H-2B nonimmigrant workers for temporary employment in the United States.
(B) I was granted temporary labor certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) for my business's job opportunity, which required that the worker(s)
(C) I attest that if my business cannot employ all the H-2B nonimmigrant workers requested on my Form I-129 petition before the end of this fiscal year (September 30, 2017) in the job opportunity certified by DOL, my business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss).
(D) I attest that my business has a bona fide temporary need for all the H-2B nonimmigrant workers requested on the Form I-129 petition, consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(ii).
(E) If my current labor certification contains a start date of work before June 1, 2017, I will complete a new assessment of the United States labor market in advance of H-2B nonimmigrant workers coming to the United States to begin employment before October 1, 2017, as follows:
1. I will place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) serving the area of intended employment that contains the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for an H-2B nonimmigrant worker(s) and this accompanying attestation to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
2. I will place one newspaper advertisement, which may be published on any day of the week, meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance; and
3. I will offer the job to any qualified and available U.S. worker who applies or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted. I understand that consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.
(F) I agree to retain a copy of this signed attestation form, the additional recruitment
(G) I agree to comply with all assurances, obligations, and conditions of employment set forth in the
I hereby sign this under penalty of perjury:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a final rule amending regulations that will become effective August 29, 2017. The fiscal year (FY) 2017 final fee rule, published June 30, 2017, amends the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to NRC applicants and licensees. This document corrects the annual fees for fuel facility licensees.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0081 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michele Kaplan, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-5256, email:
The NRC published a final rule amending its regulations in parts 170 and 171 of title 10 of the
The FY 2017 final fee rule contained inadvertent errors in the calculation of the fuel facilities fee class annual fees. Although the fuel facilities total annual fee recovery amount was correctly calculated at $28.4 million, the NRC staff incorrectly calculated the prorated unpaid portion of Lead Cascade's annual fee to be spread among the six fee categories within the fee class for the remaining licensees. When prorating Lead Cascade's expected annual fee, the NRC staff mistakenly used the 1.E. fee category, which caused the calculated unpaid prorated amount to be higher than the actual prorated amount by $1.5 million. To correct this situation, the NRC staff lowered the amount to be recovered from the remaining licensees by $1.5 million. This rule, therefore, corrects fee categories 1.A.(1)(a), 1.A.(1)(b), 1.A.(2)(b), 1.A.(2)(c), 1.E., and 2.A.(1) in the table in § 171.16(d) and Table VIII in the portion of the final rule preamble that includes these fees.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on these amendments and to make this final rule effective on August 29, 2017, the effective date of the FY 2017 final rule. These amendments are necessary to correct an error in the NRC's fee calculations and do not involve changes to NRC policy or the exercise of agency discretion. Second, these amendments will have no adverse effect on any person or entity regulated by the NRC because these amendments will lower annual fees (if anything, these amendments will have a beneficial effect on the affected fee classes). For these reasons, an opportunity for comment would not be meaningful. These amendments need to be effective on August 29, 2017, the effective date of the FY 2017 final rule, in order to avoid incorrect payments by stakeholders in the affected fee classes and the consequent administrative burden on the NRC if refunds must be processed.
In FR Doc. 2017-13520, appearing on page 30682 in the
1. Beginning on page 30686, in section a., Fuel Facilities, Table VIII is corrected to read as follows:
(d) * * *
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination from fatigue testing that cracks could develop in the cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking in the cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 23, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 23, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0105, dated June 6, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following the results of a new full scale fatigue test campaign on the A321 airframe in the context of the A321 extended service goal, it was identified that cracks could develop in the cabin floor beam junctions at fuselage frame (FR) 35.1 and FR 35.2, on both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides, also on aeroplanes operated in the context of design service goal.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed an inspection programme, published in Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1317, SB A320-53-1318, SB A320-53-1319, and SB A320-53-1320, each containing instructions for a different location.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the affected cabin floor beam junctions [for cracking] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
This [EASA] AD is considered an interim action, pending development of a permanent solution.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.
Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise the proposed AD to permit use of later approved revisions of service information as we have done in previous alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). DAL stated that Airbus service bulletins are EASA approved, and through the bi-lateral agreement with the European Union, these subsequent service bulletin revisions should be allowed to be used by U.S. operators without seeking an AMOC. DAL also explained that having the ability to utilize future service bulletin revisions without seeking an AMOC is more efficient and preserves the required level of safety. DAL added that they operate airplanes that are not listed in the service bulletin applicability, but are included in the proposed AD. DAL claimed that without a provision allowing later approved revisions, they might have to apply for multiple AMOCs as the service information is updated.
We do not agree with DAL's request. We may not refer to any document that does not yet exist in an AD. In general terms, we are required by Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations to either publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as “referenced” material, in which case we may only refer to such material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the
To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request approval to use later revisions as an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
In addition, in accordance with 14 CFR part 39.27, if there is a conflict between an AD and service information, operators must follow the requirements of the AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed the following service information, which describes procedures for inspections for cracking on the frame to cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations, and repairs. This service information is distinct because it applies to different locations on the airplanes.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1317, dated December 15, 2015 (FR 35.1 on the right-hand side).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1318, dated October 9, 2015 (FR 35.1 on the left-hand side).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1319, dated October 9, 2015 (FR 35.2 on the right-hand side).
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1320, dated October 9, 2015 (FR 35.2 on the left-hand side).
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 175 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 23, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a determination from fatigue testing on the Model A321 airframe that cracks could develop in the cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the cabin floor beam junction at certain fuselage frame locations, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding 36,900 total flight cycles since first flight of the airplane, or within 2,100 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the frame to cabin floor beam junction on the aft and forward sides at frame (FR) 35.1 and FR 35.2 on the left-hand and right-hand sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD. Repeat the inspection of the frame to cabin floor beam junction on the aft and forward sides at FR 35.1 and FR 35.2 on the left-hand and right-hand sides thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15,300 flight cycles.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1317, dated December 15, 2015 (FR 35.1 right-hand side).
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1318, dated October 9, 2015 (FR 35.1 left-hand side).
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1319, dated October 9, 2015 (FR 35.2 right-hand side).
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1320, dated October 9, 2015 (FR 35.2 left-hand side).
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Although the service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, unless otherwise specified in the instructions provided by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0105, dated June 6, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to:
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1317, dated December 15, 2015
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1318, dated October 9, 2015.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1319, dated October 9, 2015.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1320, dated October 9, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain wing fuel tank access panels are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires replacement of affected access panels and modification of the coamings of the associated access holes. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 23, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 23, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0158, dated July 7, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Based on findings on test articles, fatigue-induced cracks may develop in the coamings of certain wing fuel tank access panels Part Number (P/N) D12395-403 and P/N D12450-403, installed on Fokker F28 Mark 0100 aeroplanes.
To ensure the continued structural integrity with respect to fatigue, repetitive inspections were included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Fokker Services also developed precautionary measures to reduce stress loads in the affected areas by replacement of the affected access panels with new panels, P/N D19701-401 and P/N D19701-403, having thinner skin, and a modification by introducing internal patches to the coamings of the affected access holes.
These precautionary measures were introduced with Service Bulletins (SB) SBF100-57-027 and SBF100-57-028. As part of the Widespread Fatigue Damage re-evaluation, it was concluded that repetitive inspections through the ALS do not provide a sufficient level of protection against the fatigue-induced cracks.
This condition, if not corrected, would affect the structural integrity of the lower wing skins of both outer wings in the areas surrounding the affected fuel tank access panels.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of the affected access panels and modification of the coamings of these access holes.
Post-modification inspection requirements depend on the actual number of flight cycles accumulated at the moment of modification. Related detailed information is provided in SBF100-57-027 and SBF100-57-028, as well as in Fokker Services ALS Report SE-623 Issue 12.
Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF100.178#05 provides additional information concerning the subject addressed by this [EASA] AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued the following service information:
• Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013, which provides instructions to replace certain fuel tank access panels.
• Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-028, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013, which provides instructions to modify the coamings of certain fuel tank access holes.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 23, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that certain wing fuel tank access panels are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the wing structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 63,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes identified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-028, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013: Modify the coamings of the fuel tank access holes at the access panel locations identified in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-028, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013.
(2) For airplanes identified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013: Replace access panels having part number D12395-403 and D12450-403 with new panels having part number D19701-401 and D19701-403, at the access panel locations identified in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013.
(1) For airplanes that, on the effective date of this AD, have an access panel with part number D12395-403 or D12450-403 installed at any of the affected locations: After accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, no person may install, on any airplane, access panels having part number D12395-403 or D12450-403 at any access panel location as identified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013.
(2) For airplanes that, on the effective date of this AD, do not have an access panel with part number D12395-403 or D12450-403 installed at any of the affected locations: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, access panels having part number D12395-403 or D12450-403 at any access panel location as identified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-028, dated May 2, 1994.
(ii) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-028, Revision 1, dated November 1, 1994.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, dated September 13, 1993.
(ii) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, Revision 1, dated May 2, 1994.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2014-0158, dated July 7, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-027, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013.
(ii) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-028, Revision 2, dated December 11, 2013.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an aborted takeoff because the rudder pedals were not operating correctly. Investigation revealed a protruding screw in the rudder pedal heel rest adjacent to the pedals. This AD requires a torque check of the screws in the cover assembly of the heel rest for both the Captain and the First Officer's rudder pedals, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 23, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 23, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6490; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing, Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Tyler Myers supported the intent of the NPRM.
United Airlines noted that the NPRM did not address whether or not the final rule would allow operators to take credit for accomplishment of the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 1, dated August 15, 2016 (“BASB 737-25A1732, Revision 1”), if completed prior to the effective date of the final rule. We infer that the commenter is requesting that the final rule include a statement that accomplishment of the actions specified in BASB 737-25A1732, Revision 1, prior to the effective date of the final rule is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of the final rule.
We agree with the commenter that operators should be able to take credit for accomplishment of the actions in BASB 737-25A1732, Revision 1, prior to the effective date of this AD. This allowance was provided in paragraph (f) of the proposed AD in the statement “Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified unless already done.” However, since the NPRM was issued, Boeing has published, and we have reviewed, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 2, dated April 13,
We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this AD to refer to BASB 737-25A1732, Revision 2. We have also added paragraph (i) to this AD to give credit for actions accomplished using the work instructions in BASB 737-25A1732, Revision 1; and redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
We agree with the commenter that STC ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 2, dated April 13, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a torque check of the screws in the cover assembly of the heel rest for both the Captain and the First Officer's rudder pedals, and corrective action. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,187 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 23, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 2, dated April 13, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment and Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report of an aborted takeoff because the rudder pedals were not operating correctly. Investigation revealed a protruding screw in the rudder pedal heel rest adjacent to the pedals. It was determined that the screws in the cover assembly of the heel rest for both the Captain and the First Officer's rudder pedals might
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 21 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time torque check of the screws in the cover assembly of the heel rest for both the Captain and the First Officer's rudder pedals, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 2, dated April 13, 2017.
If the results of the torque check required by paragraph (g) of this AD indicate that any screw does not hold torque to the required value, before further flight, replace the affected screw and associated nutplate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 2, dated April 13, 2017.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 1, dated August 15, 2016.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6490; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1732, Revision 2, dated April 13, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulation.
This document contains a final regulation changing the amount of the user fee for the special enrollment examination to become an enrolled agent. The charging of user fees is authorized by the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952. The final regulation affects individuals taking the enrolled agent special enrollment examination.
Jonathan R. Black, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 300 regarding user fees. On January 26, 2016, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-134122-15) proposing to change the amount of the Enrolled Agent Special Enrollment Examination (EA-SEE) user fee was published in the
Section 330 of title 31 of the United States Code authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to regulate the practice of
Section 10.4(a) of Circular 230 authorizes the IRS to grant status as enrolled agents to individuals who demonstrate special competence in tax matters by passing a written examination (the EA-SEE) administered by, or under the oversight of, the IRS and who have not engaged in any conduct that would justify suspension or disbarment under Circular 230. There were a total of 51,755 active enrolled agents as of September 1, 2016.
Beginning in 2006, the IRS engaged the services of a third-party contractor to develop and administer the EA-SEE. The EA-SEE is composed of three parts, which are offered in a testing period that begins each May 1 and ends the last day of the following February. The EA-SEE is not available in March and April, during which period it is updated to reflect recent changes in the relevant law. More information on the EA-SEE, including content, scoring, and how to register, can be found on the IRS Web site at
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) authorizes each agency to promulgate regulations establishing the charge for services provided by the agency (user fees). The IOAA provides that these user fee regulations are subject to policies prescribed by the President and shall be as uniform as practicable. Those policies are currently set forth in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 (OMB Circular), 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993).
The IOAA states that the services provided by an agency should be self-sustaining to the extent possible. 31 U.S.C. 9701(a). The OMB Circular states that agencies that provide services that confer special benefits on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public are to establish user fees that recover the full cost of providing those services. The OMB Circular requires that agencies identify all services that confer special benefits and determine whether user fees should be assessed for those services.
Agencies are to review user fees biennially and update them as necessary to reflect changes in the cost of providing the underlying services. During this biennial review, an agency must calculate the full cost of providing each service, taking into account all direct and indirect costs to any part of the U.S. government. The full cost of providing a service includes, but is not limited to, salaries, retirement benefits, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs, as well as an appropriate allocation of overhead and other support costs associated with providing the service.
An agency should set the user fee at an amount that recovers the full cost of providing the service unless the agency requests, and OMB grants, an exception to the full-cost requirement. OMB may grant exceptions only where the cost of collecting the fees would represent an unduly large part of the fee for the activity, or where any other condition exists that, in the opinion of the agency head, justifies an exception. When OMB grants an exception, the agency does not collect the full cost of providing the service that confers a special benefit on identifiable recipients rather than the public at large, and the agency therefore must fund the remaining cost of providing the service from other available funding sources. When OMB grants an exception, the agency, and by extension all taxpayers, subsidizes the cost of the service to the recipients who should otherwise be required to pay the full cost of providing the service as the IOAA and the OMB Circular direct.
As discussed earlier, Circular 230 section 10.4(a) provides that the IRS will grant enrolled agent status to an applicant if the applicant, among other things, demonstrates special competence in tax matters by written examination. The EA-SEE is the written examination that tests special competence in tax matters for purposes of that provision, and an applicant must pass all three parts of the EA-SEE to be granted enrolled agent status through written examination. The IRS confers a benefit on individuals who take the EA-SEE beyond those that accrue to the general public by providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate special competence in tax matters by passing a written examination and therefore satisfying one of the requirements for becoming an enrolled agent under Circular 230 section 10.4(a). Because the opportunity to take the EA-SEE is a special benefit, the IRS charges a user fee to take the examination.
Pursuant to the guidelines in the OMB Circular, the IRS has calculated its cost of providing examination services under the enrolled agent program. The user fee is implemented under the authority of the IOAA and the OMB Circular and recovers the full cost of overseeing the program. The user fee was $11 to take each part of the EA-SEE and was set in 2006. The IRS does not intend to subsidize any of the cost of making the EA-SEE available to examinees and is not applying for an exception to the full-cost requirement from OMB. As a result, this regulation increases the user fee to the full cost to the IRS for overseeing the EA-SEE program, $81 per part, effective for examinees who register on or after March 1, 2018, to take the EA-SEE. The contractor who administers the EA-SEE also charges individuals taking the EA-SEE an additional fee for its services. For the May 2016 to February 2017 testing period, the contractor's fee was $98 for each part of the EA-SEE. For the May 2017 to February 2019 testing periods, the contractor's fee is $100.94. For the May 2019 to February 2020 testing period, the contractor's fee will be $103.97. The contract was subject to public procurement procedures, and there were no tenders that were more competitive.
The comments submitted on the January 26, 2016 proposed rule and the October 25, 2016 proposed rule are available at
All of the comments received opposed increasing the user fee for the EA-SEE. Specifically, comments expressed concern that the increased user fee would discourage individuals from becoming enrolled agents. The comments stated that discouraging individuals would be counter-productive considering that the IRS and taxpayers benefit from having more tax professionals who meet the standards required of an enrolled agent. Comments suggested that the IRS should work to increase the number of people taking the EA-SEE each year and focus its attention on encouraging unenrolled preparers, particularly those who participate in the Annual Filing Season Program in Rev. Proc. 2014-42, to become enrolled agents, which would result in a reduced user fee on a per-part basis when the IRS redetermines the
The Treasury Department and the IRS do not intend the user fee to discourage individuals from becoming enrolled agents and have considered the possible impact of increasing the user fee on the number of individuals taking the EA-SEE. Enrolled agents play a valuable role in the tax administration process, and the IRS uses the EA-SEE to ensure their qualifications. The IRS welcomes a continuing dialogue on how it can attract more individuals to take the EA-SEE and thereby lower the cost per part by spreading the fixed costs of administration over a larger population of examinees. The Treasury Department and the IRS have considered the potential impact on the number of individuals if the full cost of the EA-SEE program is collected and concluded not to seek an exemption to the full-cost requirement. Additionally, efforts to improve unenrolled preparers' knowledge of federal tax law, such as implementation of the Annual Filing Season Program, have not substantially affected the number of individuals taking the EA-SEE and have no direct relationship with the user fee.
Some comments alternatively recommended that the fee remain the same for taking the EA-SEE the first time, but that subsequent attempts to take and pass the EA-SEE should be subject to a higher fee. Comments suggested that the fee for subsequent attempts could be rebated if the individual passed the EA-SEE. The comments explained that this would discourage all but the most serious candidates from taking the EA-SEE. Comments also suggested that the IRS could increase the fee gradually over a period of years, in order to encourage preparers to become enrolled agents sooner rather than later, and that the IRS should retain the $11 per part user fee for a two-year window so that everyone who passed at least one part of the EA-SEE (presumably prior to the announcement of the fee increase) would have an opportunity to complete all parts of the EA-SEE without an unexpected fee increase.
The Treasury Department and the IRS considered these comments but have declined to implement them. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not have information to forecast how many examinees are likely to pass each part of the EA-SEE the first time versus on later attempts, and it therefore would not be able to adequately determine the cost allocation between first-time and repeat examinees. Additionally, the Treasury Department and the IRS think examinees should be charged the full cost to the IRS of overseeing the administration of the EA-SEE, regardless of whether they have already taken one or two parts, given the absolute amount of the user fee ($81 per part). This final regulation increases the user fee to the full cost to the IRS, and the IRS has determined that it will not seek an exception to the full-cost requirement from OMB.
Comments recommended the IRS consider alternative means to reduce costs after the existing agreement with the contractor who administers the EA-SEE expires in 2020. Contractor costs are unrelated to this user fee regulation, and any concerns related to such costs should be directed to the RPO.
Comments also asked how it was possible that the IRS did not notice the increased costs over the course of the decade following the last user fee increase. Although the OMB Circular directs the IRS to set its fees every two years, the IRS was unable to obtain accurate estimates of its total costs until recently, because it had insufficient data to estimate the change in size of the testing population.
Comments suggested that the IRS should not charge a user fee to register for the EA-SEE, because the IRS and the general public benefit from the existence of enrolled agents. Whether a benefit accrues to the IRS and the general public, however, is not relevant to whether a user fee is appropriate under the OMB Circular. As discussed in the October 25, 2016 proposed rule, it is appropriate under the OMB Circular to charge a user fee for taking the EA-SEE because taking the EA-SEE provides a benefit to examinees.
Comments observed that the IRS charges user fees inconsistently because, for example, the IRS does not charge user fees for toll-free telephone service, continuing-education webinars, walk-in service, notice letters, the annual filing season program record of completion, etc. This regulation deals only with the user fee for the EA-SEE, which, as discussed earlier, is compliant with the requirements of the OMB Circular, and the appropriateness of the EA-SEE user fee is not contingent on whether the IRS charges, or should charge, user fees for other activities.
Comments further questioned the determination of the amount of the EA-SEE user fee. One comment assumed that the increase in revenue was allocable to ten full-time equivalent employees and questioned how so much time was involved in oversight of the EA-SEE—the comment noted that, after accounting for the cost of background investigations, the salary of a GS-12 step 1 employee in Washington, DC, when multiplied by the overhead rate and again multiplied by ten, equals approximately the expected increase in annual revenue to the IRS from the increased user fee. Comments also questioned how much time staff spent reviewing surveys and setting the annual cut score, among other things. The preamble to the October 25, 2016 proposed rule addresses most questions about costing methodology. As stated in that preamble, eight individuals spend approximately seventy-five percent of their time on the EA-SEE, and two individuals spend approximately ten-percent of their time on the EA-SEE. That amounts to just over six people working full time. The calculation in the comment on employee hours did not appear to account for the cost of benefits, which are calculated as 28.5 percent of salary, and the variance between the ten employee salaries, which range from GS-7 to GS-15, in calculating the number of employees involved. RPO employees do not track the time spent on each individual task associated with the EA-SEE, but—as stated in the preamble to the October 25, 2016 proposed rule—managers who are familiar with the employees' work provided estimates of the total time involved, based on their knowledge and experience.
Finally, comments asked the IRS to request an exception to the full-cost requirement from the OMB and
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The user fee primarily affects individuals who take the enrolled agent examination, many of whom may not be classified as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, a substantial number of small entities is not likely to be affected. Further, the economic impact on any small entities affected would be limited to paying the $70 difference in cost per part between the $81 user fee and the previous $11 user fee, which is unlikely to present a significant economic impact. Moreover, the total economic impact of this regulation is approximately $1.57 million, which is the product of the approximately 22,425 parts of the EA-SEE administered annually and the $70 increase in the fee. Accordingly, the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The principal author of this regulation is Jonathan R. Black of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Rev. Proc. 2014-42, Annual Filing Season Program, is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
31 U.S.C. 9701.
(b)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) on August 28, 2015. This SIP revision includes a revised motor vehicle fuel volatility regulation that has been updated to be consistent with existing Federal regulations which require retailers to sell reformulated gasoline (RFG) in the counties of York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, and Lincoln, as of June 1, 2015. The intended effect of this action is to approve of this amendment into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on August 18, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0648. All documents in the docket are listed on the
John Rogan, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone (617) 918-1645, facsimile (617) 918-0645, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On May 8, 2017 (82 FR 21346), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maine. The NPR proposed approval of Maine's revised Chapter 119, Motor
EPA is approving Maine's August 28, 2015 SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is approving Maine's revised Chapter 119, Motor Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limits, and incorporating it into the Maine SIP. EPA is approving this SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and relevant EPA guidance, and it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the State of Maine's revised Chapter 119 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 18, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP). The SIP revision consists of an Alternative Control Plan (ACP) for the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick Air Freshener Single Phase Aerosol Spray, issued pursuant to Maine's consumer products rule. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
This direct final rule will be effective September 18, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 18, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0023 at
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Maine's Chapter 152, “Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products” (Chapter 152) became effective in the State of Maine on September 1, 2004 and was approved by EPA into the Maine SIP on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61382). Maine subsequently amended this rule. The current amended version of the rule became effective in the State of Maine on December 15, 2007 and was approved by EPA into the Maine SIP on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30216). Chapter 152 contains VOC content limits for the manufacture and sale of various consumer products in the state of Maine. Chapter 152 also provides for state and EPA approval of ACPs by allowing the responsible party the option of voluntarily applying for such agreements.
On March 30, 2012, the Maine DEP received an ACP application from Reckitt Benckiser LLC (Reckitt) for Reckitt's Air Wick Air Freshener Single-Phase Aerosol Spray pursuant to Chapter 152. The Maine DEP approved the Reckitt ACP effective April 23, 2013 and on the same day sent EPA the ACP for approval into the Maine SIP.
Reckitt manufactures Air Wick Air Freshener Single-Phase Aerosol Spray (Product), which is offered for retail sale and wholesale distribution in the State of Maine. The Product contains 4.6% VOCs by weight. The Chapter 152 regulatory content limit for single-phase aerosol air freshener is 30% VOCs by weight. Reckitt's ACP generates VOC credits, expressed in pounds of VOCs, based on the difference between the Product VOC content and regulatory VOC limit for each unit sold in the State of Maine. Credits generated are subject to the conditions in the ACP Approval. Reckitt shall monitor Maine sales of the Product and each calendar quarter shall provide to the Maine DEP accurate records and documentation as a basis for compliance reporting. Only sales in the State of Maine that are substantiated by accurate documentation shall be used in the calculation of VOC emissions and emission reductions (surplus reductions). The resulting surplus reduction credits shall be discounted by 5% prior to the issuance
Surplus reduction certificates shall not constitute instruments, securities, or any other form of property. The issuance, use and trading of all surplus reductions shall be subject to the conditions within the ACP. Any surplus reductions issued by Maine DEP may be used by Reckitt until the reductions expire, are traded to another responsible party operating under a SIP-approved ACP, or until the ACP is canceled. A valid surplus reduction shall be in effect starting five days after the date of issuance by the Maine DEP, for a continuous period of one year at the end of which period the surplus reduction shall then expire. Surplus reductions cannot be applied retroactively to any compliance period prior to the compliance period in which the reductions were generated. While valid, surplus reductions certificates can only be used in the State of Maine to:
(1) Adjust either the Consumer Product ACP emissions of either Reckitt or another ACP responsible party to which the reductions were traded, provided the surplus reductions are not to be used by any ACP responsible party to lower its ACP emissions when its ACP emissions are equal to or less than the ACP limit during the applicable compliance period; or
(2) be traded for the purpose of reconciling another approved Consumer Product ACP responsible party's shortfalls.
EPA has reviewed the ACP and has determined that it is approvable. Reckitt must still, at a minimum, comply with the VOC content limits in Maine's SIP-approved Chapter 152. However, to the extent that the company documents, as outlined in the ACP, the sales of Product in Maine with a VOC content below these limits, the Maine DEP will issue VOC emission reduction credits that may be used in the future. Since to date, this is the first and only Consumer Product ACP submitted by the State of Maine for SIP approval, reduction certificates generated may only be held for future use until they expire (
EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Maine SIP, an ACP for Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick Air Freshener Single Phase Aerosol Spray.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
This rule will be effective September 18, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by August 18, 2017.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 18, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the alternative control plan issued by the Maine DEP to Reckitt described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 18, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a final rule to amend the Environmental Protection Agency Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) to make administrative updates, corrections and minor edits. EPA does not anticipate any adverse comments.
This rule is effective on September 18, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 18, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2017-0126, at
Julianne Odend'hal, Office of Acquisition Management (Mail Code 3802R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. The EPAAR is being amended to make administrative changes including updates, corrections and minor edits. None of these changes are substantive or of a nature to cause any significant expense for EPA or its contractors. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
This action applies to contractors who have or wish to have contracts with the EPA.
A.
B.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
•
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPAAR Parts 1501, 1504, 1509, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1519, 1535, 1552 and 1553 are being amended to make administrative changes including updates, corrections and minor edits.
This direct final rule amends the EPAAR to make the following changes: (1) EPAAR 1501.603-1 is amended to remove outdated policy reference “chapter 8 of the EPA “Contracts Management Manual” ” and to add in its place “the EPA Acquisition Guide (EPAAG) subsection 1.6.4”; (2) EPAAR 1504.804-5 is amended to remove outdated policy reference “Unit 42 of the EPA Acquisition Handbook” and to add in its place “the EPA Acquisition Guide (EPAAG) subsection 4.8.1”; (3) EPAAR 1509.507-1(a)(1) is amended to clarify the FAR reference by removing “(FAR) 48 CFR” and adding in its place “FAR”; (4) EPAAR 1515.404-473(a) is amended to remove “except those identified in EPAAR (48 CFR) 1516.404-273(b)” and to add in its place “except those otherwise identified in the EPAAR” because the EPAAR reference no longer exists; (5) EPAAR 1516.301-70 is amended to clarify the FAR reference by removing “48 CFR” and adding in its place “in FAR”; (6) EPAAR 1516.406(b) is amended to correct the EPAAR reference by removing “clause” and adding in its place “provision”; (7) EPAAR 1517.208 is amended to include a prescription for 48 CFR 1552.217-70 by adding a new paragraph (a) stating that the Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 1552.217-70, Evaluation of Contract Options, in solicitations containing options, and re-designating existing paragraphs (a) through (g) as paragraphs (b) through (h); (8) EPAAR part 1519 is amended to correct an office title by removing “Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP)” and “OSBP”, and adding in their place “Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)” and “OSDBU” respectively wherever they appear in part 1519; (9) EPAAR 1535.007(a), (b) and (c) are amended to clarify the EPAAR references by adding “the provision at”; (10) EPAAR 1552.209-71 Alternate I introductory text is amended to add “(SEP 1998)”; (11) EPAAR 1552.209-73 Alternate I introductory text is amended to add “(JAN 2015)”; (12) EPAAR 1552.211-74 Alternate I and II introductory texts are amended to add “(APR 1984)” and Alternate III and IV introductory texts are amended to add “(DEC 2014)”; (13) EPAAR 1552.216-72 Alternate I introductory text is amended to add “(JUL 2014)”; (14) EPAAR 1552.216-75 introductory text and the ending text are amended to correct the EPAAR references by removing “clause” and adding in their place “provision”; (15) EPAAR 1552.217-76 clause title is amended to add “(MAR 1984)”; (16) EPAAR 1552.217-77 introductory text is amended by removing “1517.208(g)” and adding in its place “1517.208(h)”; (17) EPAAR 1552.219-70(b) and (d) are amended to correct an office title by removing “Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP)” and “OSBP”, and adding in their place “Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)” and “OSDBU” respectively; (18) EPAAR 1552.219-71(f)(2)(v) and (k) are amended to correct an office title by removing “Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP)” and adding in its place “Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)”, and 1552.219-71(k) is amended to update the address to Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson Clinton North Building, Mail Code 1230A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20450, Telephone: (202) 566-2075, Fax: (202) 566-0266; (19) EPAAR 1552.223-71 is amended by removing the following Web site addresses: “
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it is limited to matters of agency organization.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action amends the EPAAR to make administrative changes including updates, corrections, and minor edits. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication between EPA and Tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this rule from Tribal officials.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, (February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Government procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 48 CFR parts 1501, 1504, 1509, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1519, 1535, 1552 and 1553 are amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
EPA Contracting Officers shall be selected and appointed and their appointments terminated in accordance with the Contracting Officer warrant program specified in EPA Acquisition Guide (EPAAG) subsection 1.6.4.
5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 41 U.S.C. 418b.
In addition to those procedures set forth in FAR 4.804-5, the contracting office shall, before final payment is made under a cost reimbursement type contract, verify the allowability, allocability, and reasonableness of costs claimed. Verification of total costs incurred should be obtained from the Office of Audit through the Financial Analysis and Oversight Service Center in the form of a final audit report. Similar verification of actual costs shall be made for other contracts when cost incentives, price redeterminations, or cost-reimbursement elements are involved. Termination settlement proposals shall be submitted to the Financial Analysis and Oversight Service Center for review by the Office of Audit as prescribed by FAR 49.107. All such audits will be coordinated through the cost advisory group in the contracting office. Exceptions to these procedures are the quick close-out procedures as described in FAR 42.708 and EPA Acquisition Guide (EPAAG) subsection 4.8.1.
Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).
(a) * * *
(1) Include the information prescribed in FAR 9.507-1;
5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
(a) In addition to the limitations established by statute (see FAR 15.404-4(b)(4)(i)), no administrative ceilings on profits or fees shall be established, except those otherwise identified in the EPAAR.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
The policy of EPA for cost-reimbursement, term form contracts is to make provisional payment of fee (
(b) The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.216-75, Base Fee and Award Fee Proposal, in all solicitations which contemplate the award of cost-plus-award-fee contracts. The Contracting Officer shall insert the appropriate percentages.
5 U.S.C. 301; Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c); and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
(a) The Contracting Officer shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.217-70, Evaluation of Contract Options, in solicitations containing options.
(b) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.217-71, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract—Cost-Type Contract, when applicable.
(c) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.217-72, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract—Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contract, when applicable.
(d) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.217-73, Option for Increased Quantity—Cost-Type Contract, when applicable.
(e) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.217-74, Option for Increased Quantity—Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contract, when applicable.
(f) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.217-75, Option to Extend the Effective Period of the Contract—Time and Materials or Labor Hour Contract, when applicable.
(g) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.217-76, Option to Extend the Effective Period of the Contract—Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract, when applicable.
(h) The Contracting officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.217-77, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract—Fixed Price, when applicable.
Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).
Each program's Assistant or Associate Administrator shall be responsible for developing its socioeconomic goals on a fiscal year basis. The goals shall be developed in collaboration with the supporting Chiefs of Contracting Offices (CCOs) or Regional Acquisition Managers (RAMs), the assigned Small Business Specialist (SBS), and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU). The goals will be based on advance procurement plans and past performance. The goals shall be submitted to the Director of OSDBU, at least thirty (30) days prior to the start of the fiscal year.
The Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) provides guidance and advice, as appropriate, to Agency program and contracts officials on small business programs. The OSDBU Director is the central point of contact for inquiries concerning the small business programs from industry, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Congress; and shall advise the Administrator and staff of such inquiries as required. The OSDBU Director shall represent the Agency in the negotiations with the other Government agencies on small business programs matters.
(a) Small Business Specialists (SBSs) shall be appointed in writing. Regional SBSs will normally be appointed from members of staffs of the appointing authority. The appointing authorities for regional SBSs are the RAMs. The SBSs for EPA headquarters, Research Triangle Park (RTP), and Cincinnati shall be appointed by the OSDBU Director. The SBS is administratively responsible directly to the appointing authority and, on matters relating to small business programs activities, receives technical guidance from the OSDBU Director.
(b) A copy of each appointment and termination of all SBSs shall be forwarded to the OSDBU Director. In addition to performing the duties outlined in paragraph (c) of this section that are normally performed in the activity to which assigned, the SBS shall perform such additional functions as may be prescribed from time to time in furtherance of overall small business programs goals. The SBS may be appointed on either a full- or part-time basis; however, when appointed on a part-time basis, small business duties shall take precedence over collateral responsibilities.
(c) The SBS appointed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall perform the following duties as appropriate:
(1) Maintain a program designed to locate capable small business sources for current and future acquisitions;
(2) Coordinate inquiries and requests for advice from small business concerns on acquisition matters;
(3) Review all proposed solicitations in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, assure that small business concerns will be afforded an equitable opportunity to compete, and, as appropriate, initiate recommendations for small business set-asides, or offers of requirements to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for the 8(a) program, and complete EPA Form 1900-37, “Record of Procurement Request Review,” as appropriate;
(4) Take action to assure the availability of adequate specifications and drawings, when necessary, to obtain small business participation in an acquisition. When small business concerns cannot be given an opportunity on a current acquisition, initiate action, in writing, with appropriate technical and contracting personnel to ensure that necessary specifications and/or drawings for future acquisitions are available;
(5) Review proposed contracts for possible breakout of items or services suitable for acquisition from small business concerns;
(6) Participate in the evaluation of a prime contractor's small business subcontracting programs;
(7) Assure that adequate records are maintained, and accurate reports prepared, concerning small business participation in acquisition programs;
(8) Make available to SBA copies of solicitations when so requested; and
(9) Act as liaison with the appropriate SBA office or representative in connection with matters concerning the small business programs including set-asides.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 48 CFR 1552.219-70, Mentor-Protégé Program, in all contracts under which the contractor has been approved to participate in the EPA Mentor-Protégé Program.
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.219-71, Procedures for Participation in the EPA Mentor-Protégé Program, in all solicitations valued at $500,000 or more which will be cost-plus-award-fee or cost-plus fixed-fee contracts.
(a) If no Small Business Administration (SBA) representative is available, the Small Business Specialist (SBS) shall initiate recommendations to the contracting officer for small business set-asides with respect to individual acquisitions or classes of acquisitions or portions thereof.
(b) When the SBS has recommended that all, or a portion, of an individual acquisition or class of acquisitions be set aside for small business, the contracting officer shall:
(1) Promptly concur in the recommendation; or
(2) Promptly disapprove the recommendation, stating in writing the reasons for disapproval. If the contracting officer disapproves the recommendation of the SBS, the SBS may appeal to the appropriate appointing authority, whose decision shall be final.
(a) Each proposed acquisition for construction estimated to cost between $10,000 and $1,000,000 shall be set-aside for exclusive small business participation. Such set-asides shall be considered to be unilateral small business set-asides, and shall be withdrawn in accordance with the procedure of FAR 19.506 only if found not to serve the best interest of the Government.
(b) Small business set-aside preferences for construction acquisitions in excess of $1,000,000 shall be considered on a case-by-case basis.
One copy of the determination required by FAR 19.705-2(c) shall be placed in the contract file and one copy provided to the Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
In determining the acceptability of a proposed subcontracting plan, the
The synopsis of contract award, where applicable, shall include a statement identifying the contract as one containing Public Law 95-507 subcontracting plans and goals.
Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).
(a) Contracting officers shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.235-73, Access to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Confidential Business Information, in all solicitations when the contracting officer has determined that EPA may furnish the contractor with confidential business information which EPA had obtained from third parties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136
(b) Contracting officers shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.235-75, Access to Toxic Substances Control Act Confidential Business Information, in all solicitations when the contracting officer has determined that EPA may furnish the contractor with confidential business information which EPA had obtained from third parties under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601
(c) Contracting officers shall insert the provision at 48 CFR 1552.235-81, Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern-Representation, when notified in the Advance Procurement Plan (APP) or by an EPA funding/requesting office, in accordance with the Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (iDURC) EPA Order 1000.19, Policy and Procedures for Managing Dual Use Research of Concern, in solicitations that will result in a contract under which EPA funding will be used by the recipient to conduct or sponsor “life sciences research”.
5 U.S.C. 301 and 41 U.S.C. 418b.
As prescribed in 1519.203(a), insert the following clause:
(a) The Contractor has been approved to participate in the EPA Mentor-Protégé Program. The purpose of the Program is to increase the participation of small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) as subcontractors, suppliers, and ultimately as prime contractors; establish a mutually beneficial relationship with SDBs and EPA's large business prime contractors (although small businesses may participate as Mentors); develop the technical and corporate administrative expertise of SDBs which will ultimately lead to greater success in competition for contract opportunities; promote the economic stability of SDBs; and aid in the achievement of goals for the use of SDBs in subcontracting activities under EPA contracts.
(b) The Contractor shall submit an executed Mentor-Protégé agreement to the Contracting Officer, with a copy to the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) or the Small Business Specialist, within thirty (30) calendar days after the effective date of the contract. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor within thirty (30) calendar days from its submission if the agreement is not accepted.
(c) The Contractor as a Mentor under the Program agrees to fulfill the terms of its agreement(s) with the Protégé firm(s).
(d) If the Contractor or Protégé firm is suspended or debarred while performing under an approved Mentor-Protégé agreement, the Contractor shall promptly give notice of the suspension or debarment to the OSDBU and the Contracting Officer.
(e) Costs incurred by the Contractor in fulfilling their agreement(s) with the Protégé firm(s) are not reimbursable on a direct basis under this contract.
(f) In an attachment to Individual Subcontract Reports (ISR), the Contractor shall report on the progress made under their Mentor-Protégé agreement(s), providing:
(1) The number of agreements in effect; and
(2) The progress in achieving the developmental assistance objectives under each agreement, including whether the objectives of the agreement have been met, problem areas encountered, and any other appropriate information.
As prescribed in 1519.203(b), insert the following provision:
(a) This provision sets forth the procedures for participation in the EPA Mentor-Protégé Program (hereafter referred to as the Program). The purpose of the Program is to increase the participation of concerns owned and/or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as subcontractors, suppliers, and ultimately as prime contractors; to establish a mutually beneficial relationship between these concerns and EPA's large business prime contractors (although small businesses may participate as Mentors); to develop the technical and corporate administrative expertise of these concerns, which will ultimately lead to greater success in competition for contract opportunities; to promote the economic stability of these concerns; and to aid in the achievement of goals for the use of these concerns in subcontracting activities under EPA contracts. If the successful offeror is accepted into the Program they shall serve as a Mentor to a Protégé firm(s), providing developmental assistance in accordance with an agreement with the Protégé firm(s).
(b) To participate as a Mentor, the offeror must receive approval in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section.
(c) A Protégé must be a concern owned and/or controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals within the meaning of section 8(a)(5) and (6) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(5) and (6)), including historically black colleges and universities. Further, in accordance with Public Law 102-389 (the 1993 Appropriation Act), for EPA's contracting purposes, economically and socially disadvantaged individuals shall be deemed to include women.
(d) Where there may be a concern regarding the Protégé firm's eligibility to participate in the program, the protégé's eligibility will be determined by the contracting officer after the SBA has completed any formal determinations.
(e) The offeror shall submit an application in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section as part of its proposal which shall include as a minimum the following information.
(1) A statement and supporting documentation that the offeror is currently performing under at least one active Federal contract with an approved subcontracting plan and is eligible for the award of Federal contracts;
(2) A summary of the offeror's historical and recent activities and accomplishments under any disadvantaged subcontracting programs. The offeror is encouraged to include any initiatives or outreach information believed pertinent to approval as a Mentor firm;
(3) The total dollar amount (including the value of all option periods or quantities) of EPA contracts and subcontracts received by the offeror during its two preceding fiscal years. (Show prime contracts and subcontracts separately per year);
(4) The total dollar amount and percentage of subcontract awards made to all concerns owned and/or controlled by disadvantaged individuals under EPA contracts during its two preceding fiscal years.
(5) The number and total dollar amount of subcontract awards made to the identified Protégé firm(s) during the two preceding fiscal years (if any).
(f) In addition to the information required by paragraph (e) of this section, the offeror shall submit as a part of the application the following information for each proposed Mentor-Protégé relationship:
(1) Information on the offeror's ability to provide developmental assistance to the identified Protégé firm and how the assistance will potentially increase contracting and subcontracting opportunities for the Protégé firm.
(2) A letter of intent indicating that both the Mentor firm and the Protégé firm intend to enter into a contractual relationship under which the Protégé will perform as a subcontractor under the contract resulting from this solicitation and that the firms will negotiate a Mentor-Protégé agreement. The letter of intent must be signed by both parties and contain the following information:
(i) The name, address and phone number of both parties;
(ii) The Protégé firm's business classification, based upon the NAICS code(s) which represents the contemplated supplies or services to be provided by the Protégé firm to the Mentor firm;
(iii) A statement that the Protégé firm meets the eligibility criteria;
(iv) A preliminary assessment of the developmental needs of the Protégé firm and the proposed developmental assistance the Mentor firm envisions providing the Protégé. The offeror shall address those needs and how their assistance will enhance the Protégé. The offeror shall develop a schedule to assess the needs of the Protégé and establish criteria to evaluate the success in the Program;
(v) A statement that if the offeror or Protégé firm is suspended or debarred while performing under an approved Mentor-Protégé agreement the offeror shall promptly give notice of the suspension or debarment to the EPA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) and the Contracting Officer. The statement shall require the Protégé firm to notify the Contractor if it is suspended or debarred.
(g) The application will be evaluated on the extent to which the offeror's proposal addresses the items listed in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. To the maximum extent possible, the application should be limited to not more than 10 single pages, double spaced. The offeror may identify more than one Protégé in its application.
(h) If the offeror is determined to be in the competitive range, or is awarded a contract without discussions, the offeror will be advised by the Contracting Officer whether their application is approved or rejected. The Contracting Officer, if necessary, may request additional information in connection with the offeror's submission of its revised or best and final offer. If the successful offeror has submitted an approved application, they shall comply with the clause titled “Mentor-Protégé Program.”
(i) Subcontracts of $1,000,000 or less awarded to firms approved as Protégés under the Program are exempt from the requirements for competition set forth in FAR 44.202-2(a)(5) and 52.244-5(b). However, price reasonableness must still be determined and the requirements in FAR 44.202-2(a)(8) for cost and price analysis continue to apply.
(j) Costs incurred by the offeror in fulfilling their agreement(s) with a Protégé firm(s) are not reimbursable as a direct cost under the contract. Unless EPA is the responsible audit agency under FAR 42.703-1, offerors are encouraged to enter into an advance agreement with their responsible audit agency on the treatment of such costs when determining indirect cost rates. Where EPA is the responsible audit agency, these costs will be considered in determining indirect cost rates.
(k)
As prescribed in 1523.703-1, insert the following provision, or language substantially the same as the provision, in solicitations for meetings and conference facilities.
(a) The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. As such, all EPA meetings and conferences will be
(b) Potential meeting or conference facility providers for EPA shall provide information about the environmentally preferable features and practices identified by the checklist contained in paragraph (c) of this section, addressing sustainability for meeting and conference facilities including lodging and non-lodging oriented facilities.
(c) The following list of questions is provided to assist contracting officers in evaluating the environmental preferability of prospective meeting and conference facility providers. More information about EPA's Green Meetings initiative may be found on the Internet at
(1) Does your facility track energy usage and/or GHG emissions through ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (
(2) If available for your building type, does your facility currently qualify for the Energy Star certification for superior energy performance? Y/N _, NA_
(3) Does your facility track water use through ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager or another equivalent tracking tool and/or undertake best management practices to reduce water use in the facility (
(4) Do you use landscaping professionals who are either certified by a WaterSense recognized program or actively undertake the WaterSense “Water-Smart” landscaping design practices (
(5) Based on the amount of renewable energy your buildings uses, does (or would) your facility qualify as a partner under EPA's Green Power Partnership program (
(6) Do you restrict idling of motor vehicles in front of your facility, at the loading dock and elsewhere at your facility? Y/N_
(7) Does your facility have a default practice of not changing bedding and towels unless requested by guests? Y/N_, NA_
(8) Does your facility participate in EPA's WasteWise (
(9) Do you divert from landfill at least 50% of the total solid waste generated at your facility? Y/N_
(10) Will your facility be able to divert from the landfill at least 75% of the total solid waste expected to be generated during this conference/event? Y/N_
(11) Do you divert from landfill at least 50% of the food waste generated at your facility (through donation, use as animal feed, recycling, anaerobic digestion, or composting)? Y/N_
(12) Will your facility be able to divert from landfill at least 75% of the food waste expected to be generated during this conference/event (through donation, use as animal feed, recycling, anaerobic digestion, or composting)? Y/N_
(13) Does your facility provide recycling containers for visitors, guests and staff (paper and beverage at minimum)? Y/N_
(14) With respect to any food and beverage prepared and/or served at your facility, does at least 50% of it on average meet sustainability attributes such as: Local, organic, fair trade, fair labor, antibiotic-free, etc.? Y/N_
(15) Will your facility be able to ensure that at least 75% of the food and beverage expected to be served during this conference/event meets sustainability attributes such as: Local, organic, fair trade, fair labor, antibiotic-free, etc.? Y/N_
(16) Does your facility use Design for the Environment (DfE) cleaning products (
(17) Is your facility prepared to document or demonstrate all of the claims you have made above? Y/N_
(d) The contractor shall include any additional “Green Meeting” information in their proposal which is believed is pertinent to better assist us in considering environmental preferability in selecting our meeting venue.
As prescribed in 1542.705-70, insert the following clause in all cost-reimbursement and non-commercial time and materials type contracts. If ceilings are not being established, enter “not applicable” in paragraph (c) of the clause.
(a) In accordance with paragraph (d) of the “Allowable Cost and Payment” clause, the final indirect cost rates applicable to this contract shall be established between the Contractor and the appropriate Government representative (EPA, other Government agency, or auditor), as provided by FAR 42.703-1(a). EPA's procedures require a Contracting Officer determination of indirect cost rates for its contracts. In those cases where EPA is the cognizant agency (see FAR 42.705-1), the final rate proposal shall be submitted to the cognizant audit activity and to the following designated Contracting Officer: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manager, Financial Analysis and Oversight Service Center, Mail Code 3802R, Policy, Training Oversight Division, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Where EPA is not the cognizant agency, the final rate proposal shall be submitted to the above-cited address, to the cognizant audit agency, and to the designated Contracting Officer of the cognizant agency. Upon establishment of the final indirect cost rates, the Contractor shall submit an executed Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data (see FAR 15.406-2) applicable to the data furnished in connection with the final rates to the cognizant audit agency. The final rates shall be contained in a written understanding between the Contractor and the appropriate Government representative. Pursuant to the “Allowable Cost and Payment” clause, the allowable indirect costs under this contract shall be obtained by applying the final agreed upon rate(s) to the appropriate bases.
(b) Until final annual indirect cost rates are established for any period, the Government shall reimburse the contractor at billing rates established by the appropriate Government representative in accordance with FAR 42.704, subject to adjustment when the final rates are established. The established billing rates are currently as follows:
These billing rates may be prospectively or retroactively revised by mutual agreement, at the request of either the Government or the Contractor, to prevent substantial overpayment or underpayment.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause, ceilings are hereby established on indirect costs reimbursable under this contract. The Government shall not be obligated to pay the Contractor any additional amount on account of indirect costs in excess of the ceiling rates listed below:
Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reapportionment.
NMFS is reapportioning the seasonal apportionments of the 2017 Pacific halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for the trawl deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories in the Gulf of Alaska. This action is necessary to account for the actual halibut PSC use by the trawl deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories from May 15, 2017 through June 30, 2017. This action is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 17, 2017, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) apportions the 2017 Pacific halibut PSC limit for trawl gear in the GOA to two trawl fishery categories: A deep-water species fishery and a shallow-water species fishery. The halibut PSC limit for these two trawl fishery categories is further apportioned by season, including four seasonal apportionments to the shallow-water species fishery and three seasonal apportionments to the deep-water species fishery. The two fishery categories also are apportioned a combined, fifth seasonal halibut PSC limit. Unused seasonal apportionments are added to the next season apportionment during a fishing year.
Regulations at § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(D) require NMFS to combine management of the available trawl halibut PSC limits in the second season (April 1 through July 1) deep-water and shallow-water species fishery categories for use in either fishery from May 15 through June 30 of each year. Furthermore, NMFS is required to reapportion the halibut PSC limit between the deep-water and shallow-water species fisheries after June 30 to account for actual halibut PSC use by each fishery category during May 15 through June 30. As of July 13, 2017, NMFS has determined that the trawl deep-water and shallow-water fisheries used 196 metric tons (mt) and 33 mt of halibut PSC, respectively, from May 15 through June 30. Accordingly, pursuant to § 679.21(d)(4)(iii)(D), the Regional Administrator is reapportioning the combined first and second seasonal apportionments (810 mt) of halibut PSC limit between the trawl deep-water and shallow-water fishery categories to account for the actual PSC use (722 mt) in each fishery. Therefore, Table 15 of the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) is revised consistent with this adjustment.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the halibut PSC limits to the deep-water and shallow-water fishery categories. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 13, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP). The SIP revision consists of an Alternative Control Plan (ACP) for the control of volatile organic compound emissions from Reckitt Benckiser's Air Wick Air Freshener Single Phase Aerosol Spray, issued pursuant to Maine's consumer products rule. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0023 at
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, email
In the Final Rules Section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0496 or via email to
Mr. Alan Shar (6MM-AA), (214) 665-6691,
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, Act) requires that SIPs for nonattainment areas “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” The EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility. See September 17, 1979 (44 FR 53761).
Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP revision and implement RACT for major stationary sources in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe area a major stationary source is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 50, or 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs or NO
The DFW nonattainment area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard and classified as Moderate with an attainment deadline of June 15, 2010. See January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1903).
The DFW area was later reclassified to Serious on December 20, 2010 (75 FR 79302) because it failed to attain the 1997 8-Hour standard by its attainment deadline of June 15, 2010. Thus, per section 182(c) of the CAA, a major stationary source in the DFW area, is one which emits, or has the potential to emit, 50 tpy or more of VOCs or NO
The EPA designated the DFW area as nonattainment for the 2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS with a moderate classification. The designated area for the 2008 standard includes Wise County, which was not included as part of the nonattainment area for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone standard. See May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), 40 CFR 81.344; and Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality vs. EPA, No. 12-1309 (D.C. Cir., June 2, 2015) (upholding EPA's inclusion of Wise County in the DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area).
Thus, based on the moderate classification of the DFW area for the 2008 ozone standard, under section 182(b) of the CAA, a major stationary source in Wise County is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of VOCs or NO
Sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the CAA require that states must ensure RACT is in place for each source category for which EPA has issued a CTG, and for any major source not covered by a CTG. The EPA has not issued CTGs for sources of NO
The requirements for RACT are included in 182(b)(2) of the Act and further explained in our “SIP Requirements Rule” of March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12279), which explains States should refer to existing CTGs and ACTs as well as all relevant technical information including recent technical information received during the public comment period to determine if RACT is being applied. States may conclude, in some cases, that sources already addressed by RACT determinations to meet the 1-Hour and/or the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS do not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement. The EPA has previously found that Texas NO
Texas adopted new rules for wood-fired boilers in the DFW area, and new rules for major sources in the added county, Wise County, and determined they were RACT. We have reviewed the wood-fired boilers rules and the rules for major sources in Wise County and
Table 1 below contains a list of affected source categories, EPA reference documents, and the corresponding sections of 30 TAC Chapter 117 that TCEQ determined were RACT for sources of NO
On April 13, 2016 (81 FR 21747), we approved revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 (NO
We have reviewed the emission limitations and control requirements for the above source categories, Table 1, in 30 TAC Chapter 117, and compared them against EPA's ACT documents, available technical information, and guidelines. Based on our review and evaluation we found the emission limitations and control requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 117 for the above source categories to be consistent with our guidance and ACT documents, and based upon available technical information that the corresponding sections in 30 TAC Chapter 117 provide for the lowest emission limitation through application of control techniques that are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. For more information, see part 3, section 6 of the TSD prepared in conjunction with this action. Also, see part 4 of the TSD for the March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16291) at
We are proposing to find that the control requirements for the source categories identified in Table 1 are RACT for all affected sources in the ten County DFW area under the 2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. See part 3, sections 5-7 of the TSD.
States are not required to adopt RACT limits for source categories for which no sources exist in a nonattainment area and can submit a negative declaration to that effect. Texas has reviewed its emissions inventory and determined that there are no nitric and adipic acid manufacturing operations in the DFW area. See Table F-1, page 8 of the Appendix F, titled “State Rules Addressing NO
As detailed in Table 2 below, EPA has issued guidance on NO
The source cap provision is a NO
Currently, three companies operate four cement kilns in Ellis County. Below we evaluate whether RACT is in place for these plants.
Ash Grove Cement Company (Ash Grove) operated three kilns in Ellis County. A federally enforceable 2013 consent decree, not a part of this SIP submittal, required by September 10, 2014 shutdown of two kilns and reconstruction of kiln #3 with Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) with an emission limitation of 1.5 pounds of NO
Holcim U.S., Inc. (Holcim) currently has two dry preheater/precalciner kilns equipped with SNCR. There has not been a long wet cement kiln associated with the Holcim operations in Ellis County. The current section 117.3123 source cap is established at 5.3 tpd NO
Martin Marietta (MM) currently operates one dry preheater/precalciner kiln #5. The existing section 117.3123 source cap allocated to this kiln is set at 7.9 tpd NO
We are proposing to conditionally approve 1.95 lbs/ton of clinker as RACT for MM following the State's written commitment to EPA. The commitment letter states that through an agreed order between TCEQ and MM, certain conditions of MM's air permit, concerning the NO
We have reviewed the emission limitations and control requirements for the source category listed in Table 2 above, the corresponding sections in 30 TAC Chapter 117, and the Appendix F of the July 10, 2015 DFW SIP submittal, and compared them against EPA's ACT documents and guidelines. Based on our review and evaluation we found the emission limitations and control requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 117 and the Appendix F of the July 10, 2015 DFW SIP submittal for the above source category to be consistent with our guidance and ACT documents. We have also found these limits are among the most stringent in place in the country, at this time. As such, we are proposing that they provide for the lowest emission limitation through application of control techniques that are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. For more information, see parts 2 and 4 of the TSD prepared in conjunction with this action.
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act the Administrator may approve a plan revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval, if the State fails to comply with such commitment. If the State does not meet its commitment within the specified time period by 1) not adopting and submitting measures by the date it committed to, 2) not submitting anything, or 3) EPA finding the submittal incomplete, the approval will be converted to a disapproval. The Regional Administrator would send a letter to the State finding that it did not meet its commitment or that the submittal is incomplete and that the SIP submittal was therefore disapproved. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the two-year clock for a Federal Implementation Plan would start as of the date of the letter. Subsequently, a notice to that effect would be published in the
We are proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Texas SIP addressing NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from organic chemical manufacturing operations. We are proposing to approve a local rule and a rule rescission to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by August 18, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0740 at
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were amended or repealed by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On September 27, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal for SMAQMD Rule 455 and Rule 464 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal review by the EPA.
We approved an earlier version of SMAQMD Rule 464 into the SIP on October 3, 2011 (76 FR 61057), and we approved SMAQMD Rule 455 into the SIP on January 24, 1985 (50 FR 3338).
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, also known as “smog,” and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. SMAQMD Rule 455, “Pharmaceutical Manufacturing,” was approved into the SIP on January 24, 1985 (50 FR 3338). EPA re-evaluated Rule 455 as part of our review of the SMAQMD's 2006 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) SIP, and concluded that Rule 455 did not meet the requirements of Federal CAA section 110(a)(2) because it lacked test methods, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements that are necessary to ensure that the rule is enforceable. 81 FR 53280, 53281 (August 12, 2016). The SMAQMD subsequently repealed Rule 455 and simultaneously amended Rule 464 to include pharmaceutical and cosmetic manufacture. Rule 464 limits VOC emissions from organic chemical plants and pharmaceutical and cosmetic manufacturing; its controls for pharmaceutical manufacturing replace Rule 455. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a control techniques guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs (see CAA sections 182(b)(2)). The SMAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as severe nonattainment for the 1997 and the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, Rule 464 must implement RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990 (“The Bluebook”).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (“The Little Bluebook”).
4. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products,” EPA-450/2-78-029, December 1978.
5. “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry,” EPA-450/4-91-031, August 1993.
We believe this rule and rule rescission are consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the RACT SIP revisions submitted by California on July 11, 2007 and January 21, 2009 for the SMAQMD severe ozone
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule and rule rescission because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until August 18, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule and rule rescission, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SMAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from landfill gas flaring at the Kiefer Landfill in Sacramento, California. We are proposing to approve portions of two SMAQMD operating permits that limit VOC emissions from this facility under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by August 18, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0196 at
Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On January 24, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted portions of SMAQMD Permits to Operate for the Kiefer Landfill. Specifically, CARB submitted permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof) and Attachment A from SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361. SMAQMD adopted these portions of Permits 24360 and 24361 for inclusion in the California SIP on July 28, 2016. Please see the docket for a copy of the complete submitted documents.
On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that the submittals for SMAQMD met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
There are no previous versions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 or 24361 regulating VOC emissions from the Kiefer Landfill in the SIP. However, the SMAQMD adopted and submitted Permit No. 17359 for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from the Kiefer Landfill gas flare on October 26, 2006, and we approved it into the SIP on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20242).
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Additionally, section 182(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires states to submit SIP provisions requiring the implementation of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for any major stationary source
On August 12, 2016, the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the SMAQMD's SIP revision to address RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based in part on our conclusion that the submittal did not satisfy the CAA section 182 requirements for the Kiefer Landfill. See 81 FR 53280. Our final action stated that sanctions would be imposed under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approved SIP revisions correcting these deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of our final rulemaking action.
The SMAQMD adopted the submitted portions of Permits 24360 and 24361 to address the VOC RACT deficiencies identified by the EPA for the Kiefer Landfill. The submitted portions relate to the control of VOC emissions from gas flares at the Kiefer Landfill (Permit 24360 applies to flare No. 1; and Permit 24361 applies to flare No. 2). They contain emission limits, equipment operational requirements, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, monitoring and testing requirements, and a stipulation that for federal enforcement purposes, the RACT provisions in the permits remain in effect as part of the SIP until replaced pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 and approved by the EPA.
SIP provisions must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, the SIP must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a control techniques guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs or NO
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990 (“The Bluebook”).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (“The Little Bluebook”).
4. “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2,” 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
5. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, “RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT); Questions and Answers” (May 18, 2006).
We are proposing to approve the submitted portions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361 into the SMAQMD portion of the California SIP because they satisfy the applicable CAA requirements for approval. Specifically, for SMAQMD Permit 24360, we propose to approve permit conditions 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 37, 39 and 40 (or portions thereof), and Attachment A, which together establish an enforceable VOC limitation satisfying
The VOC limitations contained in these permits are consistent with the limitations contained in other California air district rules for similar facilities. For example, permit condition 8 for landfill flares No. 1 and No. 2 specifies a VOC destruction efficiency of 98% or 20 parts per million by volume, dry, at 3% Oxygen, measured as hexane. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1150.1, “Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (April 1, 2011), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rule 8-34, “Solid Waste Disposal Sites” (June 15, 2005), apply this same limit. Other California air district rules such as Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District Rule 2-38, “Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (March 12, 1997) and San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 59.1, “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (June 17, 1998) reference 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, “Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” for applicable requirements, which includes these same limits. The operational standards for the landfill flares are thus also consistent with the landfill flare standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, and are also consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.” Because the applicable SIP currently does not contain VOC limitations for the Kiefer Landfill gas flares, the approval of these permit conditions strengthens the SIP. In sum, the submitted permit conditions satisfy the applicable requirements and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations and may, therefore, be approved into the California SIP.
As stated earlier, on August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53280), the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the SMAQMD's RACT SIP revisions submitted by California on July 11, 2007 and January 21, 2009, based in part on our conclusion that the state had not fully satisfied CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the pharmaceuticals manufacturing CTG category and for the Kiefer Landfill. We are separately but contemporaneously proposing approval of a SIP revision intended to address the deficiencies identified in our 2016 partial disapproval of the SMAQMD's RACT SIP regarding the pharmaceuticals manufacturing CTG category.
Please see the docket for a copy of the complete submitted documents.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the specific permit conditions of SMAQMD Permits 24360 and 24361 as submitted by CARB on January 24, 2017, because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until August 18, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted documents, our final action will incorporate these documents into the federally enforceable SIP.
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the SMAQMD permits described in Section I.A of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether to list the
The comment period for the proposed rule that published September 15, 2016, at 81 FR 63454 is reopened. We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before August 18, 2017. If you comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805-644-5763; facsimile 805-644-3958. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On September 15, 2016, we published a proposed rule (81 FR 63454) to list
Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.17(a) require that we take one of three actions within 1 year of a proposed listing: (1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) extend the final determination by not more than 6 months, if there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the determination.
Since the publication of the September 15, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 63454), there has been substantial disagreement among peer reviewers regarding the potential impact of the invasion of Argentine ants (
We find that there is substantial scientific uncertainty and disagreement about certain data relevant to our listing determination. Therefore, in consideration of these disagreements, we have determined that a 6-month extension of the final determination for this rulemaking is necessary, and we are hereby extending the final determination for 6 months in order to solicit and consider additional information that will help to clarify these issues and to fully analyze data that are relevant to our final listing determination. With this 6-month extension, we will make a final determination on the proposed rule no later than March 15, 2018.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing for
In consideration of the scientific disagreements about certain data, we are particularly interested in new information and comments regarding:
(1) How Argentine ant invasion may affect the pollination ecology of
(2) The efficacy of seed introduction for long-term establishment into suitable, unoccupied habitat of
If you previously submitted comments or information on the September 15, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 63454), please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated previously submitted comments into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed listing will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This action proposes regulations to implement an Omnibus Framework Adjustment to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council acceptable biological catch setting process. This proposed rule is necessary to provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on the measures recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Council to the National Marine Fisheries Service for implementation. The intended effect of these measures would help bring stability to quotas while accounting for year-to-year changes in stock size projections, and allow the Mid-Atlantic Council's Fishery Management Plans to automatically incorporate the best available scientific information when calculating acceptable biological catches. This action also proposes to revise regulatory language to clarify the Mid-Atlantic Council's acceptable biological catch control rule assessment level designations.
Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0056, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of the Environmental Assessment and other supporting documents are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The draft Omnibus Framework Adjustment, as submitted by the Council, is also available via the internet at
Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9112.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is required to set annual catch limits (ACLs) that do not exceed the acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to prevent overfishing. ABCs represent an upper limit for the Council to use when setting catch and landing limits. The 2011 ACL Omnibus Amendment implementing rule (76 FR 60606; September 29, 2011), enacted the Council's risk policy that provides guidance to the SSC on how much overfishing risk the Council will accept when the SSC develops ABC recommendations. The policy also outlines risk tolerance for ensuring stocks under rebuilding plans achieve fishing mortality objectives.
The Council's risk policy for setting ABCs states that for a typical species whose stock size is equal to or greater than a biomass target associated with maximum sustainable yield (B
For both typical and atypical species, the Council has specified that as stock size biomass or (B) falls below the target (B
The fishery management plans (FMPs) managed by the Council all have
The proposed action would, when assessment fishing mortality reference points are accepted by the SSC, average the probability of overfishing (or achieving the target fishing mortality for rebuilding stocks) consistent with the existing risk policy requirements. The constant, multi-year ABCs that would result must continue to meet the Council's risk policy goals, with the probability of overfishing not to exceed 50 percent in any given year. For stocks in a rebuilding plan, the probability of achieving the rebuilding fishery mortality must meet the risk policy objectives when constant, multi-year ABCs are recommended by the SSC.
Under the proposed measures, averaged ABCs could be set at a constant level for up to five years for spiny dogfish and up to three years for all other species managed by the Council. As an example, if the application of the risk policy would result in a 40-percent probability of overfishing in any given year of setting annual quotas, the average probability of overfishing resulting from constant multi-year ABCs cannot exceed 40 percent. For any 3-year period, an average ABC would result in slightly less chance of overfishing in some years and slightly more of a chance of overfishing in other years compared to non-averaged ABCs based on year-to-year projections, but could not, as outlined in the example, exceed 40 percent in any given year. This would result in a minimal difference of overfishing likelihood between the yearly ABCs versus a constant ABC over a 3-year period. As previously noted, the probability of overfishing could not exceed 50 percent in any given individual year of constant multi-year ABCs.
The SSC may provide both a standard 3-year recommendation as well as a constant 3-year recommendation based on the average overfishing probability approach for the Council to consider. The SSC would continue to review fishery performance each year during multi-year specifications, regardless of which multi-year approach is used to determine ABCs. The multi-year averaging of ABCs would not apply to stocks that do not have a quantitative assessment to derive ABCs and could not be used for stocks with an assessment that cannot provide information on the risk of overfishing.
The proposed action would revise some of the regulatory language describing the Council's ABC control rule assessment level designations. These revisions were recommended by the Council to clarify the operation of the Council's ABC control rules, these revisions are merely clarifications and do not create any regulatory changes in practice.
We are also providing notice of the administrative process the Council will use for incorporating the best scientific information available in the development of ABCs for the Atlantic Bluefish, Golden Tilefish, and Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMPs. The best available science requirements have dictated that accepted assessment information be utilized by the SSC in setting quotas under National Standard 2. The Council's SSC will utilize peer-reviewed biological reference points (overfishing level, biomass thresholds, etc.) and periodic updates to stock status determination criteria (
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with all the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's FMPs, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration defines a small business in the shellfish, finfish or other marine fishing sectors as a firm that is independently owned and operated with receipts of less than $11 million annually (see NMFS final rule revising the small business standard for commercial fishing, 80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The measures proposed in this action apply to the vessels that hold permits for Council-managed fisheries because all species have ABCs set by the SSC. According to permit data at the end of 2014, there were 4,712 vessels with at least one active Northeast Federal fishing permit, either commercial or party/charter (some vessels have both commercial and party/charter permits and most vessels have more than one permit).
This proposed action would make it consistent with the Council's risk policy for the SSC to specify constant multi-year ABCs for all the Council's FMPs, provided the average of each year's probability of overfishing adhere to the appropriate overfishing probability goal. This change would help bring stability to fishing quotas while accounting for year-to-year changes in stock size projections and prevent overfishing. Given the inherent uncertainty involved in assessments, the differences are not expected to be meaningful from a biological perspective.
In addition, the proposed action would add regulatory language clarifying the assessment level designations for the Council's ABC control rule. These changes to the regulations were recommended by the Council to merely clarify the ABC control rule and do not change its function or operation.
This action also provides notice that the Atlantic Bluefish, Golden Tilefish, and Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMPs will automatically incorporate the best available scientific information in calculating ABCs. This means the SSC would utilize peer-
These measures are administrative and pertain to how the Council establishes catch limits. There is no reason to believe small entities will be negatively affected by the proposed action given the administrative nature of the changes. The resulting actions to set catch using these new procedures may have an indirect effect on small entities; however, catch setting will occur in separate subsequent actions that will include, as needed, analyses under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR 648 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The SSC shall review the following criteria, and any additional relevant information, to assign managed stocks to one of four types of control rules based on the species' assessments and its treatment of uncertainty when developing ABC recommendations. The SSC shall review the ABC control rule assignment for stocks each time an ABC is recommended. ABCs may be recommended for up to 3 years for all stocks, with the exception of 5 years for spiny dogfish. The SCC may specify constant, multi-year ABCs, derived from the average of ABCs (or average risk of overfishing) if the average probability of overfishing remains between zero and 40 percent, and does not exceed a 50-percent probability in any given year. The average ABCs may remain constant for up to 3 years for all stocks, with the exception of 5 years for spiny dogfish. The SSC may deviate from the control rule methods and recommend an ABC that differs from the result of the ABC control rule application; however, any such deviation must include the following: A description of why the deviation is warranted; description of the methods used to derive the alternative ABC; and an explanation of how the deviation is consistent with National Standard 2. The four types of ABC control rules are described below.
(a) ABC control rule for a stock with an OFL probability distribution that is analytically-derived and accepted by the SSC.
(1) The SSC determines that the assessment OFL and the assessment's treatment of uncertainty are acceptable, based on the following:
(i) All important sources of scientific uncertainty are captured in the stock assessment model;
(ii) The probability distribution of the OFL is calculated within the stock assessment and adequately describes the OFL uncertainty;
(iii) The stock assessment model structure and treatment of the data prior to use in the model includes relevant details of the biology of the stock, fisheries that exploit the stock, and data collection methods;
(iv) The stock assessment provides the following estimates: Fishing mortality rate (F) at MSY or an acceptable proxy maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) to define OFL, biomass, biological reference points, stock status, OFL, and the respective uncertainties associated with each value; and
(v) No substantial retrospective patterns exist in the stock assessment estimates of fishing mortality, biomass, and recruitment.
(2) An
(b) ABC control rule for a stock with an OFL probability distribution that is modified by the assessment team and accepted by the SSC.
(1) The SSC determines the assessment OFL is acceptable and the SSC accepts the assessment team's modifications to the analytically-derived OFL probability distribution, based on the following:
(i) Key features of the stock biology, the fisheries that exploit it, and/or the data collection methods for stock information are missing from, or poorly estimated in, the stock assessment;
(ii) The stock assessment provides reference points (which may be proxies), stock status, and uncertainties associated with each; however, the uncertainty is not fully promulgated through the stock assessment model and/or some important sources of uncertainty may be lacking;
(iii) The stock assessment provides estimates of the precision of biomass, fishing mortality, and reference points;
(iv) The accuracy of the minimum fishing mortality threshold and projected future biomass is estimated in the stock assessment using ad hoc methods; and
(v) The modified OFL probability distribution provided by the assessment team acceptably addresses the uncertainty of the assessment.
(2) An
(c) ABC control rule for a stock with an OFL probability distribution that is modified by the SSC.
(1) The SSC determines the assessment OFL is acceptable but the SSC derives the appropriate uncertainty for OFL based on meta-analysis and other considerations. This requires the SSC to determine that the stock assessment does not contain an estimated probability distribution of OFL or the OFL probability distribution in the stock assessment is judged by the SSC to not adequately reflect uncertainty in the OFL estimate.
(2) An
(ii) If the SSC cannot develop an OFL probability distribution, a default
(d) ABC control rule for when an OFL cannot be specified.
(1) The SSC determines that the OFL cannot be specified given the available information.
(2) An
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intent to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the currently approved information collection used to compile and generate the Federally Inspected Estimated Daily Slaughter Report (OMB 0581-0050).
Comments must be received by September 18, 2017.
Comments should be submitted electronically at
Sam Jones-Ellard, Assistant to the Director, Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News Division, AMS, USDA, by telephone at (202) 720-6231, or via email at
The USDA issues a Market News report estimating daily livestock slaughter under Federal inspection. This report is compiled by AMS on a voluntary basis in cooperation with the livestock and meat industry. Market News reporting must be timely, accurate, and continuous if it is to be useful to producers, processors, and the trade in general. The daily livestock slaughter estimates are provided at the request of industry and are used to make production and marketing decisions.
The Estimated Daily Livestock Slaughter Under Federal Inspection Report is used by a wide range of industry contacts, including packers, processors, producers, brokers, and retailers of meat and meat products. The livestock and meat industry requested that USDA issue slaughter estimates (daily and weekly), by species, for cattle, calves, hogs, and sheep to assist them in making immediate production and marketing decisions and as a guide to the volume of meat in the marketing channel. The information requested from respondents includes their estimation of the current day's slaughter at their plant(s) and the actual slaughter for the previous day. Also, the Government is a large purchaser of meat and related products and this report assists other Government agencies in providing timely information on the quantity of meat entering the processing channels.
The information must be collected, compiled, and disseminated by an impartial third-party, in a manner which protects the confidentiality of the reporting entity. AMS is in the best position to provide this service.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of AMS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of AMS estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Burden Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations for a revision with an extension of a currently approved Information Collection Request that supports the Certified State Mediation Program. The information collection is necessary to ensure that the grant program is administered properly. The collection of information is used to determine whether participants meet the eligibility requirements to be a recipient of grant funds. Lack of adequate information to make the determination could result in the improper administration of Federal grant funds.
We will consider comments we receive by September 18, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comment, include volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Tracy Jones at the above address.
For specific questions related to collection activities, Tracy Jones (202) 720-6771.
To effectively administer the Program, FSA requires an application for recertification, which includes submission of a letter from the State, a letter from the grantee, SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, and SF-425. Approved grantees provide a mid-year report as well as an annual report that includes information on mediation services provided during the preceding Federal fiscal year, assessment of the performance and effectiveness of the State's Program, and any other matters related to the Program as the State elects to include. In addition, approved grantees complete SF-270 to request either advance funding or reimbursement of expenses already paid. The information requested is necessary for FSA to determine the grantee's eligibility and administer the Program effectively.
The number of state-certified mediation programs has increased over the past several years. The increase in burden hours reflects this change.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help FSA:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, ability and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice to extend the public comment period for the Ringo Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed Forest Plan amendment.
The Deschutes National Forest is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 45-day extension to the public comment period on the project-specific Forest Plan amendment proposed in the Ringo Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This extended 45-day comment period is for the amendment, which includes the substantive provisions and relevant analysis.
The comment period ends September 5, 2017. All relevant comments received during the extended public comment period related to the proposed amendment, including the substantive provisions, will be considered in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
Comments may be submitted by any one of the following methods:
•
•
This opportunity for comment applies
Joseph Bowles, Project Team Leader, Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest, (541) 433-3200, or via email at
The original Notice of Availability published in the
As identified in the DEIS, the Ringo Project would be exempt from the following Standard and Guideline of the 1990 Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP):
Scenic Views, Foreground (M9-90; LRMP p. 4-131),
Substantive provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 that apply to the proposed amendment for Ringo DEIS Purpose and Need are:
The following two provisions would be applicable to the effects from implementing this Forest Plan Amendment.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision to the currently approved information collection, the Bee and Honey survey docket (0535-0153). In addition NASS plans to merge this docket with the currently approved Colony Loss survey docket (0535-0255). Revision to burden hours will be needed due to a changes in the size of the target population, sample design, and the inclusion of the Colony Loss surveys.
Comments on this notice must be received by September 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0153, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
In this request for renewal of the Bee and Honey (0535-0153) docket, NASS will incorporate the two surveys (operations with fewer than 5 colonies and operations with 5 or more colonies) conducted under the Colony Loss (0535-0255) docket with the honey production surveys included in this docket. The operations with 5 or more colonies will continue to receive quarterly loss questionnaires and an annual honey production survey. The
The title of this revised docket will now be Honey and Honey Bee Surveys. As pollinators, honey bees are vital to the agricultural industry for producing food for the world's population. USDA, NASS has found that during 2015, colonies losses by quarter ranged from 12 to 18 percent. Overall, from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016, the total number of colonies in the United States decreased by 8 percent.
Additional data is needed to accurately describe the costs associated with pest/disease control, wintering fees, and replacement worker and queen bees. USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with other relevant Federal partners, are scaling up efforts to address the decline of honey bee health with a goal of ensuring the recovery of this critical subset of pollinators. NASS supports the Pollinator Research Action Plan, published May 19, 2015, which emphasizes the importance of coordinated action to identify the extent and causal factors in honey bee mortality.
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before September 18, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Chris Savage, U.S. Census Bureau, Economy Wide-Statistics Division, Room 8K045, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-6500, (301) 763-4834, (or via Email at
The Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS) covers employer firms with establishments located in the United States and classified in the Retail Trade sector as defined by the 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
The Census Bureau selects firms for this survey from the Business Register (BR) using a stratified random sample where strata are defined by industry and annual sales. The BR is the Census Bureau's master business list and contains basic economic information for more than 7.4 million employer business and over 22.5 million non-employer businesses. The BR contains information collected through direct data collections as well as administrative record information from other federal agencies. The Census Bureau updates the ARTS sample quarterly to reflect employer business “births” and “deaths.” The births reflect new employer businesses identified in the Business and Professional Classification Survey; deaths involve deleting firms and subunits of firms identified by their Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) when it is determined they are no longer active.
Through the ARTS survey, the Census Bureau asks firms to provide annual sales, annual e-commerce sales, year-end inventories held inside and outside the United States, sales taxes, total operating expenses, purchases, accounts receivables, and, for selected industries, sales by merchandise line. These data are used to satisfy a variety of public and business needs such as conducting economic market analyses, assessing company performance, and forecasting future demands. The Census Bureau publishes national data from the survey for selected retail trade industries approximately fifteen months after the end of the reference year.
Effective in survey year 2016 (collected in 2017), ARTS no longer includes firms in the accommodation and food services industries. These industries are now part of the Service Annual Survey (SAS). Also effective in survey year 2016, ARTS introduced a new sample and requested that firms provide two years of data in order to link the old and new samples. Linking the samples helps ensure that published estimates continue to be reliable and accurate. In survey year 2017 and subsequent years, ARTS will request only one year of data until a new sample is selected again in five years.
Every five years, in survey years ending in 2 and 7, ARTS requests data on detailed operating expenses from firms. During the survey year 2016 ARTS collection, detailed operating expenses are not collected. The last time ARTS collected detailed operating expenses was in 2013 for the 2012 survey year. The plan is to reinstate these questions in 2018 as part of the 2017 survey year ARTS data collection.
In an effort to reduce burden and meet the changing needs of data users, as of the 2016 survey year the Census Bureau is no longer requesting that department stores provide data regarding sales collected from leased departments.
The ARTS data is only collected electronically using the Census Bureau's secure online reporting instrument (Centurion). This electronic system of reporting is designed to allow respondents easier access, convenience and flexibility. Data is automatically stored and results are available immediately. In rare cases where the company has no access to the Internet, the Census Bureau can arrange for the company to provide data to an analyst via telephone.
The Census Bureau collects this information via the Internet but in rare cases when respondents have no access to the Internet, it is collected by telephone.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
Notice of final change.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) publishes this notice to announce the upcoming change in the classification of limited-access highways in the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Referencing and Encoding (MAF/TIGER) System. The change assigns all limited-access highways a MAF/TIGER Feature Classification Code (MTFCC) of S1100 (Primary Roads). Previously, the classification code for limited-access highways was either S1100 (Primary Roads) or S1200 (Secondary Roads).
This notice will be effective on August 18, 2017.
David Cackowski, (301) 763-5423, or at
MAF/TIGER System is an abbreviation for the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System. It is a digital (computer-readable) geographic database that automates the mapping and related geographic activities required to support the Census Bureau's census and survey programs. The Census Bureau developed TIGER to automate the geographic support processes needed to meet the major geographic needs of the 1990 census: Producing cartographic products to support data collection and map presentations, providing geographic structure for tabulation and dissemination of the collected statistical data, assigning residential and employer addresses to the correct geographic location and relating those locations to the geographic entities used for data tabulation, and so forth. During the 1990s, the Census Bureau developed an independent Master Address File (MAF) to support field operations and allocation of housing units for tabulations. After Census 2000, both the address-based MAF and geographic TIGER databases merged to form the MAF/TIGER System. The contents of the MAF/TIGER System undergo continuous updating and are made available to the public through a variety of TIGER products such as shapefiles, geodatabases, and web map services.
The Census Bureau issued in the
The Census Bureau publishes this notice to announce the upcoming change in the classification of limited-access highways in the MAF/TIGER System. Generally, only interstate highways are currently in the S1100
Primary roads are limited-access highways that connect to other roads only at interchanges and not at at-grade intersections. This category includes interstate highways, as well as all other highways with limited access (some of which are toll roads). Limited-access highways with only one lane in each direction, as well as those that are undivided, are also included under S1100.
The final description makes clear that secondary roads are not limited-access highways. The final description of Secondary Roads (S1200) is:
Secondary roads are main arteries that are not limited access, usually in the U.S. highway, state highway, or county highway systems. These roads have one or more lanes of traffic in each direction, may or may not be divided, and usually have at-grade intersections with many other roads and driveways. They often have both a local name and a route number.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
July 19, 2017.
Carrie Bethea or Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1491 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.
On February 24, 2017, the Department of Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in April and June 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by a mandatory respondent, LG Chem, Ltd. (LG Chem), and its U.S. affiliate, LG Chem America, Ltd., for use in the Department's final determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.
Because Daewoo International Corporation (Daewoo) and Kumho Petrochemical Co, Ltd (Kumho), mandatory respondents in this investigation, did not provide information requested by the Department, and the Department preliminarily determined Daewoo and Kumho to have been uncooperative, the Department did not verify their books and records and facilities.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for LG Chem, and also the all-others rate.
The Department found in the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters
For the final determination, the Department assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Daewoo and Kumho. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero,
The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act, the Department preliminarily found critical circumstances exist with respect to Daewoo and Kumho and do not exist with respect to LG Chem and the non-individually examined companies receiving the “All-Others” rate in this investigation. The Department did not receive comments concerning the preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances. For the final determination, the Department continues to find that, in accordance with 735(a)(3) of the Act, critical circumstances exist for Daewoo and Kumho. A discussion of the determination can be found in the “Critical Circumstances” section of the Issues and Decision Memarandum.
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Korea as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after, February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the
Because of the Department's affirmative determination of critical circumstances for Daewoo and Kumho, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) and (c)(4)(A) of the Act, suspension of liquidation of ESB rubber from Korea, shall continue to apply, for Daewoo and Kumho, to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of the
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Korea no later than 45 days after the Department's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip,
ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On May 26, 2017, the Court of International Trade (the CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department) final remand results pertaining to the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for Shijiazhuang Goodman Trading Co., Ltd. (Goodman). The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final rescission of the new shipper review and that the Department has found Goodman eligible for a new shipper review resulting in an individually-determined dumping margin of $0.08/kg.
Applicable June 5, 2017.
Chien-Min Yang, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5484.
Goodman is a Chinese producer/exporter of fresh garlic and requested a new shipper review on November 27, 2012, and amended that request on December 6, 2012.
On April 21, 2014, the Department issued the
On March 22, 2016, the CIT remanded for the Department to reconsider its decision.
Per the Court's instructions, the Department reconsidered its previous analysis and determined, under protest, Goodman's U.S. sales to be
On May 26, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Final Redetermination in full.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margin listed above.
Since the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
July 19, 2017.
Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406.
On February 24, 2017, the Department published the
The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in February and March 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent ARLANXEO Brasil S.A. (ARLANXEO Brasil) and its U.S. affiliate, ARLANXEO U.S.A. LLC, for use in the Department's final determination.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verifications, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for ARLANXEO Brasil, and also the all-others rate.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
On January 25, 2017, the petitioners
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Brazil as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Brazil no later than 45 days after the Department's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip,
ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Notice.
A Request for Panel Review was filed on behalf of Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. with the United States Section
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is August 11, 2017);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is August 28, 2017); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Applicable July 12, 2017.
Jennifer Shore at (202) 482-2778, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 22, 2017,
On June 23, 2017, June 27, 2017, and June 28, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain aspects of the Petition.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the GOS and the European Union are providing countervailable subsidies within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to manufacturers, producers, or exporters of ripe olives from Spain, and that imports of such ripe olives are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Additionally, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations of subsidy programs in Spain on which we are initiating a CVD investigation.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as
Because the Petition was filed on June 22, 2017, the period of investigation (POI), the period for which we are measuring subsidies, is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
The products covered by this Petition are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives,” from Spain. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition accurately reflected the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments and information must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOS and the EU of its receipt of the Petition and provided them with the opportunity for consultations regarding the CVD allegations.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The ITC, which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation”
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that ripe olives, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioner provided the 2016 production of the domestic like product by its members.
On July 5, 2017, we received comments on industry support from ASEMESA.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental responses, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that the Department initiate.
Because Spain is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Spain materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. The petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, adverse impact on the domestic industry, including financial performance, production, and capacity utilization, and reduction in olive acreage under cultivation.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for the imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.
The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of ripe olives in Spain benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOS and the EU. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of ripe olives from Spain receive countervailable subsidies from the GOS and/or the EU, as alleged by the petitioner.
The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) made numerous
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on the six alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination in this investigation no later than 65 days after the date of initiation.
The petitioner named numerous companies as producers/exporters of ripe olives from Spain.
On July 6, 2017, the Department released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data must do so within three business days of the announcement of the initiation of the CVD investigation.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at
Comments for this investigation must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. EST, by the dates noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOS and the European Commission via ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition,
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days of the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of ripe olives in Spain are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different deadline after which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.
The products covered by this Petition are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives.” The subject merchandise includes all colors of olives; all shapes and sizes of olives, whether pitted or not pitted, and whether whole, sliced, chopped, minced, wedged, broken, or otherwise reduced in size; all types of packaging, whether for consumer (retail) or institutional (food service) sale, and whether canned or packaged in glass, metal, plastic, multi-layered airtight containers (including pouches), or otherwise; and all manners of preparation and preservation, whether low acid or acidified, stuffed or not stuffed, with or without flavoring and/or saline solution, and including in ambient, refrigerated, or frozen conditions.
Included are all ripe olives grown, processed in whole or in part, or packaged in Spain. Subject merchandise includes ripe olives that have been further processed in Spain or a third country, including but not limited to curing, fermenting, rinsing, oxidizing, pitting, slicing, chopping, segmenting, wedging, stuffing, packaging, or heat treating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in Spain.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Specialty olives
“Spanish-style” green olives. Spanish-style green olives have a mildly salty, slightly bitter taste, and are usually pitted and stuffed. This style of olive is primarily produced in Spain and can be made from various olive varieties. Most are stuffed with pimento; other popular stuffings are jalapeno, garlic, and cheese. The raw olives that are used to produce Spanish-style green olives are picked while they are unripe, after which they are submerged in an alkaline solution for typically less than a day to partially remove their bitterness, rinsed, and fermented in a strong salt brine, giving them their characteristic flavor.
“Sicilian-style” green olives. Sicilian-style olives are large, firm green olives with a natural bitter and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in small quantities in the United States using a Sevillano variety of olive and harvested green with a firm texture. Sicilian-style olives are processed using a brine-cured method, and undergo a full fermentation in a salt and lactic acid brine for 4 to 9 months. These olives may be sold whole unpitted, pitted, or stuffed.
“Kalamata” olives: Kalamata olives are slightly curved in shape, tender in texture, and purple in color, and have a rich natural tangy and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in Greece using a Kalamata variety olive. The olives are harvested after they are fully ripened on the tree, and typically use a brine-cured fermentation method over 4 to 9 months in a salt brine.
Other specialty olives in a full range of colors, sizes, and origins, typically fermented in a salt brine for 3 months or more.
The merchandise subject to this petition is currently classifiable under subheadings 005.70.0230, 2005.70.0260, 2005.70.0430, 2005.70.0460, 2005.70.5030, 2005.70.5060, 2005.70.6020, 2005.70.6030, 2005.70.6050, 2005.70.6060, 2005.70.6070, 2005.70.7000, 2005.70.7510, 2005.70.7515, 2005.70.7520, and 2005.70.7525 HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also be imported under subheadings 2005.70.0600, 2005.70.0800, 2005.70.1200, 2005.70.1600, 2005.70.1800, 2005.70.2300, 2005.70.2510, 2005.70.2520, 2005.70.2530, 2005.70.2540, 2005.70.2550, 2005.70.2560, 2005.70.9100, 2005.70.9300, and 2005.70.9700. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and US Customs purposes, they do not define the scope of the petition; rather, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable July 12, 2017.
Catherine Cartsos at (202) 482-1757, or Peter Zukowski at (202) 482-0189, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 22, 2017,
On June 23, 2017, June 27, 2017, and June 28, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain aspects of the Petition.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of ripe olives from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Additionally, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act. As discussed in the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below, the Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to initiation of the requested AD investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on June 22, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
The products covered by this investigation are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives,” from Spain. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition accurately reflected the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments and information must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of ripe olives to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe ripe olives, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristic comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 1, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 11, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The ITC, which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that ripe olives, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioner provided the 2016 production of the domestic like product by its members.
On July 5, 2017, we received comments on industry support from ASEMESA.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental responses, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse impact on the domestic industry, including financial performance, production, and capacity utilization; reduction in olive acreage under cultivation; and magnitude of the alleged margins of dumping.
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of ripe olives from Spain. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based U.S. price on export price (EP) using average unit values of publicly available import data.
The petitioner was unable to obtain home market or third country prices for ripe olives and calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).
As noted above, the petitioner was unable to obtain home market or third country prices; accordingly, the petitioner based NV on CV.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of ripe olives from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for ripe olives form Spain are 78.00 and 223.00 percent.
Based upon the examination of the AD Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of ripe olives from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA) made numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws.
The petitioner identified numerous companies in Spain as producers/exporters of ripe olives.
We intend to release CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO within five business days of the announcement of the initiation of this investigation.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications
Comments for this investigation must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. EST, by the dates noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of Spain (GOS) and the European Commission via ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by delivery of the public version to the GOS consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of ripe olives from Spain are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). The regulation requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different deadline after which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The products covered by this investigation are certain processed olives, usually referred to as “ripe olives.” The subject merchandise includes all colors of olives; all shapes and sizes of olives, whether pitted or not pitted, and whether whole, sliced, chopped, minced, wedged, broken, or otherwise reduced in size; all types of packaging, whether for consumer (retail) or institutional (food service) sale, and whether canned or packaged in glass, metal, plastic, multi-layered airtight containers (including pouches), or otherwise; and all manners of preparation and preservation, whether low acid or acidified, stuffed or not stuffed, with or without flavoring and/or saline solution, and including in ambient, refrigerated, or frozen conditions.
Included are all ripe olives grown, processed in whole or in part, or packaged in Spain. Subject merchandise includes ripe olives that have been further processed in Spain or a third country, including but not limited to curing, fermenting, rinsing, oxidizing, pitting, slicing, chopping, segmenting, wedging, stuffing, packaging, or heat treating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in Spain.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Specialty olives
“Spanish-style” green olives. Spanish-style green olives have a mildly salty, slightly bitter taste, and are usually pitted and stuffed. This style of olive is primarily produced in Spain and can be made from various olive varieties. Most are stuffed with pimento; other popular stuffings are jalapeno, garlic, and cheese. The raw olives that are used to produce Spanish-style green olives are picked while they are unripe, after which they are submerged in an alkaline solution for typically less than a day to partially remove their bitterness, rinsed, and fermented in a strong salt brine, giving them their characteristic flavor.
“Sicilian-style” green olives. Sicilian-style olives are large, firm green olives with a natural bitter and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in small quantities in the United States using a Sevillano variety of olive and harvested green with a firm texture. Sicilian-style olives are processed using a brine-cured method, and undergo a full fermentation in a salt and lactic acid brine for 4 to 9 months. These olives may be sold whole unpitted, pitted, or stuffed.
“Kalamata” olives: Kalamata olives are slightly curved in shape, tender in texture, and purple in color, and have a rich natural tangy and savory flavor. This style of olive is produced in Greece using a Kalamata variety olive. The olives are harvested after they are fully ripened on the tree, and typically use a brine-cured fermentation method over 4 to 9 months in a salt brine.
Other specialty olives in a full range of colors, sizes, and origins, typically fermented in a salt brine for 3 months or more.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 2005.70.0230, 2005.70.0260, 2005.70.0430, 2005.70.0460, 2005.70.5030, 2005.70.5060, 2005.70.6020, 2005.70.6030, 2005.70.6050, 2005.70.6060, 2005.70.6070, 2005.70.7000, 2005.70.7510, 2005.70.7515, 2005.70.7520, and 2005.70.7525 HTSUS. Subject merchandise may also be imported under subheadings 2005.70.0600, 2005.70.0800, 2005.70.1200, 2005.70.1600, 2005.70.1800, 2005.70.2300, 2005.70.2510, 2005.70.2520, 2005.70.2530, 2005.70.2540, 2005.70.2550, 2005.70.2560, 2005.70.9100, 2005.70.9300, and 2005.70.9700. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and US Customs purposes, they do not define the scope of the investigation; rather, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge (woven ribbons) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016. This review covers two PRC companies: Huzhou Kingdom Coating Industry Co., Ltd. (Huzhou Kingdom) and Huzhou Unifull Label Fabric Co., Ltd. (Huzhou Unifull). The Department preliminarily finds that neither Huzhou Unifull nor Huzhou Kingdom established eligibility for a separate rate, as Huzhou Unifull had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR and Huzhou Kingdom failed to participate in the proceeding. Furthermore, the Department is rescinding administrative review with respect to Huzhou BeiHeng Textile Co., Ltd. (Huzhou BeiHeng) and Huzhou Siny Label Material Co., Ltd. (Huzhou Siny). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 19, 2017.
Aleksandras Nakutis, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147.
On September 17, 2010, the Department published in the
The products covered by the order are narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge. The merchandise subject to the
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily finds that both Huzhou Kingdom and Huzhou Unifull have failed to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate and, therefore, they are considered part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department finds that Huzhou Kingdom did not submit a certification of no sales, a separate rate application, or a separate rate certification. With respect to Huzhou Unifull, the Department preliminary finds there are no reviewable entries during the POR and, thus, Huzhou Unifull has failed to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. Both Avery Dennison and Huzhou Unifull submitted the same CBP Form 7501 to indicate an entry of subject merchandise by Huzhou Unifull. However, after examination, the Department determines that the CBP Form 7501 does not correspond to a sale by Huzhou Unifull and as such, found there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Huzhou BeiHeng and Huzhou Siny withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review within 90 days of the date of publication of
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. Electronically filed case briefs/written comments and hearing requests must be received successfully in their entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For exports of merchandise exported by Huzhou Kingdom, the cash deposit rate is the PRC-wide rate of 247.26 percent; (2) for exports of merchandise exported by Huzhou Unifull, the cash deposit rate is the PRC-wide rate of 247.26; (3) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but which have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (4) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Poland is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
July 19, 2017.
Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193.
On February 24, 2017, the Department published the
The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Poland. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in February, March, and April 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Synthos Dwory (Synthos), for use in the Department's final determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.
The issues raised in the case brief that was submitted by petitioners
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
For the final determination, the Department calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Synthos, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero,
The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Poland as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of ESB rubber from Poland no later than 45 days after the Department's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip,
ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.
July 19, 2017.
Julia Hancock or Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD
On February 24, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the
The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in March and April 2017, the Department conducted verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.—Planta Altamira (Negromex) for use in the Department's final determination. The Department used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II. Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for Negromex, and also the all-others rate.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
For the final determination, the Department calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Negromex, the only individually examined exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero,
The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of ESB rubber from Mexico as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 24, 2017, the date of publication of the
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.
ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (
The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of 90-day petition finding.
We, NMFS, announce a 90-Day finding on a petition to list the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon (
Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are available on the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at
Gary Rule, NMFS West Coast Region, at
On June 29, 2015, we received a petition from Mr. Sam Wright (Olympia, Washington) to list the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon (
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To identify the proper taxonomic unit for consideration in a salmon listing determination, we apply our Policy on Applying the Definition of Species under the ESA to Pacific Salmon (ESU Policy) (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). Under this policy, populations of salmon substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations and representing an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species are considered to be an ESU. In our listing determinations for Pacific salmon under the ESA, we have treated an ESU as constituting a DPS, and hence a “species,” under the ESA. A species, subspecies, or ESU is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be at risk of extinction presently or within the foreseeable future.
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(i)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as credible scientific information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the revision proposed in the petition may be warranted. Conclusions drawn in the petition without the support of credible scientific information will not be considered “substantial information.” The “substantial scientific or commercial information” standard must be applied in light of any prior reviews or findings we have made on the listing status of the species that is the subject of the petition. Where we have already conducted a finding on, or review of, the listing status of that species (whether in response to a petition or on our own initiative), we will evaluate any petition received thereafter seeking to list, delist, or reclassify that species to determine whether a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted despite the previous review or finding. Where the prior review resulted in a final agency action, a petitioned action generally would not be considered to present substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the action may be warranted unless the petition provides new information not previously considered.
In evaluating the petition, we first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will not alone provide sufficient basis for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (
On March 14, 1994, NMFS was petitioned by the Professional Resources Organization—Salmon (PRO—Salmon) to list Washington's Hood Canal, Discovery Bay, and Sequim Bay summer-run chum salmon (
As mentioned above, in analyzing the request of the petitioner, we first evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Because the petition specifically requests listing of an ESU, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the petitioned entities, the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon in the Nisqually River system and Chambers Creek, constitute an ESU pursuant to our ESU Policy.
When identifying an ESU, our ESU Policy (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991) stipulates two elements that must be considered: (1) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other nonspecific population units, and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. In terms of reproductive isolation, the ESU Policy states that reproductive isolation does not have to be absolute, but it must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population units. Insights into the extent of reproductive isolation can be provided by movements of tagged fish, recolonization rates of other populations, measurements of genetic differences between population, and evaluations of the efficacy of natural barriers. In terms of evolutionary legacy of the species, that criterion would be met if the population contributed substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole. To make that determination, the following questions are relevant: Is the population genetically distinct from other conspecific populations (genetic component)? Does the population occupy unusual or distinctive habitat (ecological component)? Does the population show evidence of unusual or distinctive adaptation to its environment (life-history component)?
In evaluating this petition, we looked for information to suggest that the
The petitioner asserts that (1) the designation of these two winter-run chum salmon populations as an ESU is justified because they are the only known winter-run chum salmon populations in the world, (2) a diverging trend in abundance between the Chambers Creek population and the fall-run chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound renders the Nisqually River population as the only viable winter-run population and justifies an ESA listing of the petitioner's proposed ESU as threatened or endangered, and (3) Johnson
As stated previously, NMFS received three petitions in 1994 to list several populations of chum salmon in Puget Sound. In response to these petitions and to address general concerns about the species, NMFS assembled a BRT to conduct a status review of chum salmon to identify the ESUs and determine their statuses throughout the Pacific Northwest. The findings were published as Johnson et al. (1997). Based upon genetic, ecological, and life-history components, the BRT was able to analyze and group West Coast chum salmon populations into four different chum salmon ESUs. For these ESUs, the BRT analyzed the following available information.
For the genetic component, the BRT analyzed the genetic variability at 39 polymorphic loci in 153 samples collected from 105 locations in southern British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (Phelps et al. 1994; Johnson et al. 1997). Seventy-two of those 105 locations were from Puget Sound including the Chambers Creek and Nisqually River winter-run populations. From that analysis, the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run chum salmon were determined to be genetically distinct from the other Puget Sound populations and were described as the Hood Canal summer-run ESU. Genetically, the remaining Puget Sound and Hood Canal locations were clustered together with the winter-run chum salmon as genetic outliers most closely related to the fall-run Hood Canal and northern Puget Sound populations. Additional samples and analysis (Phelps 1995) resulted in three distinct clusters of samples: (1) Summer-run chum salmon of Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca; (2) Puget Sound fall-run and southern Puget Sound winter- and summer-run chum salmon; and (3) Strait of Juan de Fuca, coastal Washington, and Oregon fall-run chum salmon (Johnson et al. 1997). Recently, Waples (2015) analyzed genetic diversity and population structure from 174 chum salmon individuals at 10 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia locations—including one Hood Canal summer-run ESU location (Hamma Hamma River), the Nisqually River winter-run location, and eight other Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia locations. In a F
In examining the ecological component, neither the Nisqually River nor Chambers Creek watersheds are isolated geographically or reproductively from other chum salmon populations in southern Puget Sound; therefore, it does not qualify as an ESU. While there is no need to determine whether this cluster represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species (2nd criterion of the ESU Policy), we include this information in order to be thorough. Both the Nisqually River and Chambers Creek watersheds have supported both summer- and fall-run chum salmon in the past, along with winter-run chum salmon (Johnson et al. 1997), so there is nothing unique preventing these watersheds from supporting multiple chum salmon runs. No additional ecological information was provided by the petitioner nor found in our files.
For the life history component, Johnson et al. (1997) stated that “the distinctiveness of the winter-run populations was not sufficient to designate these populations as a separate ESU. Rather, the team concluded that these populations, along with the summer-run populations in southern Puget Sound, reflect patterns of diversity within a relatively large and complex ESU.” No additional life history information was provided by the petitioner nor found in our files; therefore, we find the conclusions in Johnson et al. (1997) remain valid. We conclude that the winter-run cluster does not represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species.
After reviewing the genetic, ecological, and life history components of these two winter-run chum salmon populations, we have concluded that these populations are not distinct from the other populations within the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU and do not meet our criteria for identification as a separate ESU. Therefore, based upon the information from the petitioner and the data found in our files, we conclude that these populations are not a separate ESU and do not qualify for listing under the ESA.
The petitioner also provided additional information on abundance for the two winter-run chum salmon populations and climate change. Since we determined that these two winter-run chum salmon populations do not qualify as an ESU, these two items were not analyzed.
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, and based on the above analysis, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action of identifying the winter-run Puget Sound chum salmon (
The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16. U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold two webinars that are open to the public.
The GMT webinars will be held Wednesday, August 2, 2017 from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. and Wednesday, September 6, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Webinar end times are estimates, meetings will adjourn when business for each day is completed.
The following login instructions will work for any of the webinars in this series. To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Ms. Kelly Ames, Pacific Council, 503-820-2426.
The primary purpose of the GMT webinars are to prepare for the September 2017 Pacific Council meeting. A detailed agenda for each webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's Web site prior to the meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. The GMT's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its meetings in 2017.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at 503-820-2411 at least ten business days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a one-day meeting of its Outreach and Education Technical Committee.
The meeting will convene on Tuesday, August 1, 2017, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., EDT.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf Council Office.
Emily Muehlstein, Public Information Officer, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The committee will begin with introductions and adoption of agenda, approval of the June 2016 meeting summary, and discuss the use of proxy attendees. The committee will review and discuss agency efforts and identify the agency point person for Fish Measurement (triggerfish) Outreach, Barotrauma and Use of Venting and Descending Tools Outreach, Lionfish
The committee will review the Fisherman's Conservation Best Practices Web page; and discuss any other business.
The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may listen in by registering for Outreach & Education Technical Committee on Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at:
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Technical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Technical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of review.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 18, 2017.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at
A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting
Richard Mo, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, at 202-418-7637 or
• Pursuant to § 17.01(a), futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), clearing members, and foreign brokers shall identify new special accounts to the Commission on Form 102A;
• pursuant to § 17.01(b), clearing members shall identify volume threshold accounts to the Commission on Form 102B; and
• pursuant to § 17.01(c), omnibus volume threshold account originators and omnibus reportable sub-account originators shall identify reportable sub-accounts to the Commission on Form 71 when requested via a special call by the Commission or its designee.
Additional reporting requirements arise from § 18.04, which results in the collection of information via Form 40 from and regarding traders who own, hold, or control reportable positions; volume threshold account controllers; persons who own volume threshold accounts; reportable sub-account controllers; and persons who own reportable sub-accounts.
Reporting requirements also arise from § 20.5(a), which requires 102S reporting entities to submit Form 102S for swap counterparty or customer consolidated accounts with reportable positions. In addition, § 20.5(b) requires every person subject to books or records under current § 20.6 to complete a 40S filing after a special call upon such person by the Commission.
In addition to the reporting requirements summarized above, § 18.05 imposes recordkeeping requirements upon: (1) Traders who own, hold, or control a reportable futures or options on futures position; (2) volume threshold account
A 60-day notice of intent to renew collection 3038-0103 (the “60-Day Notice”) was published in the
44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “CFPB's Consumer Response Intake Form.”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before September 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for Consumer Complaint and Information Collection System (Testing and Feedback).”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before September 18, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
This is a routine request for OMB to renew its approval of the collections of information currently approved under this OMB control number. The Bureau is not proposing any new or revised collections of information pursuant to this request.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, CNCS is proposing to renew an information collection.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
To access and review all the documents related to information collection listed in this notice, please use
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Douglas Godesky, Senior Grants Officer, 202-606-6967 or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Organizations that are receiving CNCS grant funds for the first time complete the form. It can be completed and submitted via email. The survey requests some existing organizational documents, such as an IRS Form 990 and audited financial statements. Organizations can provide those documents electronically or submit them on paper. CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection. The renewed information collection includes the correction of minor administrative and typographical errors and simplifies the submission instructions. The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on September 30, 2017.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.
Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-73 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
TECRO requested a possible sale of fifty-six (56) AGM-154C JSOW Air-to-Ground Missiles. This request also includes: JSOW integration, captive flight vehicles, dummy training missiles, missile containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, Joint Mission Planning System updates, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $185.5 million.
This proposed sale is consistent with U.S. law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.
This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.
The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
Currently, market research is being conducted to determine the viability of a qualified contractor in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations. The purchaser typically requests offsets, but any offsets will be determined between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives outside the United States.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AGM-154C Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) is a low observable, 1,000 lb. class, inertial navigation and global positioning satellite guided family of air-to-ground glide weapons. JSOW consists of a common airframe and avionics that provides for a modular payload assembly to attack stationary and moving massed flight-armored and armored vehicle columns, surface-to-air, soft to hard, relocatable, and fixed targets. JSOW provides combat forces with an all-weather, day/night/multiple kills per pass, launch and leave, and standoff capability.
2. The highest classification of the hardware to be exported is SECRET. The highest classification of the technical documentation to be exported is SECRET, but no radar cross section and infrared signature data nor U.S.-only tactics or tactical doctrine will be disclosed. The highest classification of the software to be exported is SECRET; however, no software source code will be disclosed. All reprogramming of missile microprocessor memories must be accomplished by U.S. Government personnel or U.S. Government approved contractors.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the United States.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-67 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
TECRO has requested a possible sale of sixteen (16) Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IIIA All Up Rounds (AUR), forty-seven (47) MK 93 MOD 1 SM-2 Block IIIA Guidance Sections (GSs), and five (5) MK 45 MOD 14 SM-2 Block IIIA Target Detecting Devices (TDDs) Shrouds. This request also includes Seventeen (17) MK 11 MOD6 SM-2 Block IIIA Autopilot Battery Units (APBUs) maneuverability upgrades on the GSs, sixty-nine (69) section containers and sixteen (16) AUR containers, operator manuals and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services. The total estimated program cost is $125 million.
This proposed sale is consistent with United States law and policy, as expressed in Public Law 96-8.
This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capabilities. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance and economic progress in the region.
The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense. The SM-2 Block IIIA missiles and components proposed in this purchase will be used to supplement existing inventories of SM-2 Block IIIAs to be used for self-defense against air and cruise missile threats onboard their destroyer-class surface ships. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missiles Systems Company of Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
It is estimated that during implementation of this proposed sale, a number of U.S. Government and contractor representatives will be assigned to the recipient or travel there intermittently during the program.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. A completely assembled STANDARD Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IIIA with or without a conventional warhead, whether a tactical or inert (training) configuration, is classified CONFIDENTIAL. Missile component hardware includes: Guidance Section (classified CONFIDENTIAL), Target Detection Device (classified CONFIDENTIAL), Warhead (UNCLASSIFIED), Rocket Motor (UNCLASSIFIED), Steering Control Section (UNCLASSIFIED), Safe and Arming Device (UNCLASSIFIED), and Autopilot Battery Unit (classified CONFIDENTIAL).
2. SM-2 operator and maintenance documentation is considered CONFIDENTIAL. Shipboard operation/firing guidance is considered CONFIDENTIAL. Pre-firing missile assembly/pedigree information is UNCLASSIFIED.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that recipient can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the United States.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.
Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-68 with attached Policy Justification.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
TECRO has requested a possible sale of MK-54 Lightweight Torpedo (LWT) Conversion Kits. This request provides the recipient with MK-54 LWTs in support of their LWT program. This sale will include LWT containers, torpedo support, torpedo spare parts, publications, training, weapon system support, engineering and technical assistance for the upgrade and conversion of one hundred sixty eight (168) MK-46 Mod 5 Torpedoes to the MK-54 Lightweight Torpedo (LWT) configuration. The total estimated program cost is $175 million.
This proposed sale is consistent with United States law and policy, as expressed in Public Law 96-8.
This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic and security interests by supporting the recipients continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capabilities. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance and economic progress in the region.
The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use the enhance capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The will be various contactors involved in this case.
There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
It is estimated that during implementation of this proposed sale, a number of U.S. Government and contractor representatives will be assigned to the recipient or travel there intermittently during the program .
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo (LWT) has been in service in the U.S. Navy (USN) since 2004. The version offered in this sale is the MK54 Mod 0 of the system. The purchaser currently does not have this weapon system in its inventory. The proposed sale consists 168 MK-54 Mod 0 LWT conversion kits, containers, spare and repair parts, weapon system support and integration, personnel training, training equipment, test equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistical support services and other related elements of logistical support.
a. Although the MK 54 Mod 0 LWT is considered state-of-the-art-technology, there is no Critical Program Information associated with the MK 54 Mod 0 LWT hardware, technical documentation or software. The highest classification of the hardware to be exported is SECRET. The highest classification of the technical manual that will be exported is CONFIDENTIAL. The technical manual is required for operation of the MK 54 Mod 0 LWT. The highest classification of the software to be exported is SECRET.
2. Loss of hardware, software, publications or other items associated with the proposed sale to a technologically advanced or competent adversary, poses the risk of the destruction of the countermeasures or replication and/or improvements to the adversary's Undersea Weapon Systems, weakening U.S. defense capabilities.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives in the Policy justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the government of Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the United States.
Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Business Board will take place.
Open to the public Wednesday, August 2, 2017 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
The address for the open meeting is Room 3E863 in the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Roma Laster, (703) 695-7563 (Voice), (703) 614-4365 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 18, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Lauren Angelo, 202-245-7276.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and grant of interim waiver, and request for public comment.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC (ITW) seeking an exemption from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment under the regulations for basic models of their Innopod temperature controlled grocery and general merchandise system (Innopod). ITW requests modifications, as specified in its petition for waiver, to the existing DOE test procedure, which references Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006 and Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 that further references American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 72. ITW submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure that allows for testing of specified Innopod basic models. This notice also announces that DOE has granted ITW an interim waiver from the DOE commercial refrigeration equipment test procedures for the specified commercial refrigeration equipment basic models, subject to use of the alternative test procedure as set forth in this notice. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning ITW's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with regard to the ITW petition until August 18, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Case No. CR-007, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Title III, Part C
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered equipment when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition
On December 20, 2016, ITW submitted a petition for waiver and interim waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401 pertaining to DOE's test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, for their Innopod temperature controlled grocery and general merchandise system (Innopod) basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. ITW's initial petition included twenty-two base model configurations. On May 3, 2017, ITW provided DOE with the complete list of 200 basic models covered by the twenty-two base model configurations. ITW petitioned for a waiver and interim waiver from various DOE test procedure requirements.
DOE's current test procedure references Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006 and Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, which further references American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 72 (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.63 (c) and (d)). ITW asserts that these current test procedures do not account for the unique operating characteristics of the Innopod basic models. Because the specific design of this product line contains one or more design characteristics noted in the waiver request, including floating suction temperatures for individual compartments, different typical door-opening cycles, and a high-temperature “ambient” compartment, ITW believes that its petition and combined application meets both conditions of 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1) for granting waivers, on the grounds that: (1) The petitioner's basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; and (2) The prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. ITW submitted to DOE an alternate test procedure that allows for testing of its Innopod basic models.
ITW's Innopod basic models include multiple thermally separated, temperature controlled compartments supplied with refrigerant from a single condensing unit. ITW's petition proposes an alternate test using an “inverse refrigeration load” test, various calculations to account for refrigeration system and component energy consumption, and adjustments to the door opening requirements based on typical use in the field. ITW's proposed refrigeration system calculations rely on the current calculations and assumptions used for testing remote condensing commercial refrigeration equipment in accordance with the DOE test procedure.
As previously noted, an interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2).
DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, the basic models identified by ITW in its petition cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure suggested by ITW and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these equipment, while alleviating the testing problems associated with ITW's implementation of DOE's applicable commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure for the specified Innopod models. However, DOE has clarified how ITW should determine basic models, as discussed in section III of this notice, and adjusted certain aspects of the requested alternate test procedure regarding ambient test conditions, referenced industry standards, and calculations, as discussed in section IV of this notice. Thus, DOE has determined that ITW's petition for waiver will likely be granted and has decided that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant ITW immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver.
ITW's initial petition for waiver and interim waiver, submitted on December 20, 2016, included a list of twenty-two “base model configurations” of its Innopod equipment. However, based on the descriptions of the compartment configurations provided for each base model configuration, DOE expects that the list does not provide each basic model to which the waiver and interim waiver would apply.
Specifically, DOE noted that many of the base model configurations include compartments that are convertible between the freezer and refrigerator temperature operating ranges. With respect to multi-mode operation, DOE has taken the position in the most recent commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure final rule that self-contained equipment or remote condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at temperatures that span multiple equipment categories must be certified and comply with DOE's regulations for each applicable equipment category. 79 FR 22291 (April 21, 2014).
Additionally, DOE notes that its current regulations allow for the use of alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs), which allow manufacturers to simulate the energy use of untested basic models once a manufacturer has a validated AEDM and could be used to simulate results at other rating temperatures. 10 CFR 429.70.
Under DOE's definition of a basic model as “equipment manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source, and that have essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption” (10 CFR 431.62), the base model configurations in ITW's initial petition would represent multiple basic models depending on the set point of the convertible compartments. DOE requested that ITW provide an updated list of basic models, consistent with DOE's definition of basic model, that would be covered by the petition for waiver and request for interim waiver. ITW provided DOE with the updated list of basic model numbers on May 3, 2017.
ITW's petition also describes compartments that are convertible between refrigerator and ambient temperature ranges. These compartments would only be considered refrigerator compartments under DOE's definitions (compartments capable of operating at or above 32 °F
For the reasons stated in section II of this notice, DOE has granted ITW's application for interim waiver from testing for its specified commercial refrigeration equipment basic models, with minor modifications to the proposed approach. The substance of the interim waiver is summarized below.
ITW is required to test and rate the specified ITW commercial refrigeration equipment Innopod basic models
In addition, DOE is requiring that ITW test compartments in all relevant equipment configurations, as required by the current test procedure. Any compartments that are convertible between the refrigerator and freezer operating temperature ranges must be tested and rated under both test settings; however, the compartments in the ITW equipment that are convertible between ambient and refrigerator temperature ranges must be tested only at the refrigerator standardized compartment temperature of 38 °F, as described in section III of this notice.
ITW must make representations about the energy use of these basic models for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such equipment have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR part 429, subpart B.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. ITW may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic models set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g). In addition, DOE notes that granting of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429. See also 10 CFR 431.401(a) and (i).
The interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(h). Furthermore, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner. DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. See 10 CFR 431.401(k).
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 6314(d)) Consistent representations about the energy efficiency of covered equipment are important for consumers evaluating equipment when making purchasing decisions and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, and after considering public comments on the petition, DOE will announce its decision as to an alternate test procedure for ITW in a subsequent Decision and Order.
During the period of the interim waiver granted in this notice, ITW shall test the basic models listed in section IV according to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, with some of the modifications to the existing DOE test requirements as specified in ITW's petition. However, DOE is requiring that ITW test its Innopod basic models according to the ambient test conditions as outlined in AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 section 4.1.2, which requires a wet-bulb test room temperature of 64.4 °F ± 1.8 °F, rather than the conditions
For the purpose of testing and rating, the Ambient (75 °F) compartment is treated as a Medium (Refrigerator at 75 °F) compartment. All volume and energy consumption calculations will be included within the Medium (Refrigerator 38 °F) category and summed with other Medium (Refrigerator 38 °F) compartment calculation(s). Compartments that are convertible between ambient and refrigerator temperature ranges shall be tested at the refrigerator temperature (38 °F). Compartments that are convertible between refrigerator and freezer (0 °F) temperature ranges shall be tested at both temperatures.
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of ITW's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models of ITW commercial refrigeration equipment, and announces DOE's decision to grant ITW an interim waiver from the test procedure for the specified basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE is publishing ITW's petition for waiver in redacted form, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to determine the energy consumption of specific basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE may consider including this alternate procedure in a subsequent Decision and Order based on comments from interested parties. However, DOE has tentatively determined that the alternate procedure proposed by ITW is not entirely acceptable and has provided a modified alternate test procedure as a part of its grant of an interim waiver. DOE will consider public comments on the petition in issuing its Decision and Order.
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner's representative is Ms. Mary Dane, Agency Approval Engineer, ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC, North American Refrigeration, 4401 Blue Mound Rd., Fort Worth, TX 76106. All comment submissions must include the agency name and Case No. CR-007 for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies to DOE: One copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and request for public comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from New Shunxiang Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (“New Shunxiang”), seeking an exemption from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure for determining the energy consumption of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers under the regulations. New Shunxiang contends that the DOE test procedure does not clearly address its basic model JG50-2D1, which combines a compartment intended for storing wine (a cooler compartment) with a beverage cooler (a refrigerator compartment), and has petitioned for a waiver from appendix A. Although New Shunxiang did not propose an alternate test approach for its basic model, DOE has granted waivers for similar products. Therefore, DOE is considering whether to permit New Shunxiang to test and rate its basic model of combination cooler-refrigerator in a manner similar to that which DOE has permitted for other manufacturers with similar products. DOE also solicits comments, data, and information concerning New Shunxiang's petition and on the alternate test procedure detailed in this document.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with regard to the New Shunxiang petition until August 18, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Case Number RF-044, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”) (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program that includes consumer refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.
The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a type of covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that: (1) Prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include
DOE recently published standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”). See 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016). Testing to demonstrate compliance with those standards will require manufacturers to use the MREF test procedure established in a final rule published in July 2016. See 81 FR 46768 (July 18, 2016) (MREF coverage determination and test procedure final rule) and 81 FR 49868 (July 29, 2016) (MREF test procedure final rule correction notice). Under these rules, DOE has determined that products such as those that are at issue here fall into the MREF category. Accordingly, consistent with these MREF-specific provisions, these products will be evaluated under prescribed procedures and against specified standards that are tailored to account for their particular characteristics.
By email with attachment sent to DOE on October 14, 2015, New Shunxiang submitted a petition for waiver for its combination cooler-refrigerator basic model JG50-2D1. In its petition, New Shunxiang stated that it was unclear how this product would be classified under DOE regulations. As indicated in New Shunxiang's submitted data, the product includes both a cooler (with temperatures down to 40.2 °F) and a refrigerator (with temperatures down to 35 °F). Such a basic model is subject to the existing refrigerator energy conservation standards for the product class that would apply if the model did not include a cooler compartment.
Although New Shunxiang did not include an alternate test procedure for its basic model, DOE is considering whether to allow New Shunxiang to test and rate its combination cooler-refrigerator basic model as detailed in section III of this document.
DOE granted a similar waiver to Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of America (“PAPRSA”) in 2012 (under PAPRSA's previous corporate name, Sanyo E&E Corporation) (Case No. RF-022, 77 FR 49443 (August 16, 2012)), in 2013 (Case No. RF-031, 78 FR 57139 (Sept. 17, 2013)), and 2014 (Case No. RF-041, 79 FR 55769 (September 17, 2014)). On October 4, 2012, DOE issued a notice of correction to its Decision and Order in Case No. RF-022 by incorporating a K-factor (correction factor) value of 0.85 when calculating the energy consumption of the affected models. 77 FR 60688. On January 26, 2016, due to issues with the equations detailed in the prior waiver decisions, DOE issued a proposed modification of its prior waivers and granted PAPRSA with an interim waiver (81 FR 4270) under Case No. RF-043 to correct these known issues. DOE also previously granted a similar waiver to Sub-Zero Group Inc. through an interim waiver (79 FR 55772 (September 17, 2014)) and a subsequent Decision and Order (80 FR 7854 (February 12, 2015)) under Case No. RF-040. More recently, DOE granted a similar waiver to AGA Marvel through an interim waiver (81 FR 41531 (Jun 27, 2016)) and a subsequent Decision and Order (82 FR 21211 (May 5, 2017)) under Case No. RF-045. DOE also granted the PAPRSA waiver through a Decision and Order on May 5, 2017 (82 FR 21209).
DOE's recently granted waivers to PAPRSA and AGA Marvel address refrigeration products similar to those identified in New Shunxiang's petition for wavier—products combining a high-temperature compartment (a cooler) with a refrigerator. The waivers granted to PAPRSA and AGA Marvel require that the manufacturers test the cooler compartment of these products at a standardized compartment temperature of 55 °F instead of the prescribed 39 °F. This temperature is consistent with the standardized compartment temperature for coolers established in the MREF test procedure final rule. See 81 FR 75194. The PAPRSA and AGA Marvel waivers also require that the manufacturers apply a correction factor of 0.85 rather than the 0.55 established in the MREF test procedure for determining compliance with refrigerator standards.
DOE, therefore, is considering permitting New Shunxiang to test its product using the alternate test approach detailed in section III of this document. This approach is consistent with that detailed in the recent waiver decisions cited earlier and would require the basic model JG50-2D1 to be tested under the alternate approach.
Although New Shunxiang did not provide an alternate test procedure for its basic model for DOE to consider (or request an interim waiver), DOE is considering whether to allow New Shunxiang to test and rate its combination cooler-refrigerator basic model JG50-2D1 on the basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, with the exception that it must calculate energy consumption using a correction factor (“K-factor”) of 0.85.
Therefore, under this approach, the energy consumption would be defined in the following manner:
If compartment temperatures are below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, section 6.2.4.1):
If compartment temperatures are not below their respective standardized temperatures for both test settings, the higher of the two values calculated by the following two formulas (according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, section 6.2.4.2):
Energy consumption of the “cooler compartment”:
Energy consumption of the “fresh food compartment”:
The following basic model is included in New Shunxiang's petition: JG50-2D1.
This document announces New Shunxiang's petition for waiver from appendix A for its basic model of a combination cooler-refrigerator and seeks comment on whether the
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate calculation methodology under consideration. New Shunxiang's cover email and attachment's text are both reproduced verbatim and are available in the docket identified in the
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-510 (Application for Surrender of a Hydropower License), FERC-520 (Application for Authority to Hold Interlocking Directorate Positions), FERC-561 (Annual Report of Interlocking Positions), and FERC-583 (Annual Kilowatt Generating Report (Annual Charges))] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by August 18, 2017.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0068 (FERC-510), 1902-0083 (FERC-520), 1902-0099 (FERC-561), or 1902-0136 (FERC-583) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC17-9-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
FERC-510 is the application for the surrender of a hydropower license. The information is used by Commission staff to determine the broad impact of such surrender. The Commission will issue a notice soliciting comments from the public and other agencies and conduct a careful review of the application before issuing an order for Surrender of a License. The order is the result of an analysis of the information produced (
FERC-520 is divided into two types of applications: Full and informational. The full application, as specified in 18 CFR 45.8, implements the FPA requirement under section 305(b) that it is unlawful for any person to concurrently hold the positions of officer or director of more than one public utility; or a public utility and a financial institution that is authorized to underwrite or participate in the marketing of public utility securities; or a public utility and an electrical equipment supplier to that public utility, unless authorized by order of the Commission. In order to obtain authorization, an applicant must demonstrate that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by the holding of the position. The full application provides the Commission with information about any interlocking position for which the applicant seeks authorization including, but not limited to, a description of duties and the estimated time devoted to the position.
An informational application, specified in 18 CFR 45.9, allows an applicant to receive automatic authorization for an interlocked position upon receipt of the filing by the Commission. The informational application applies only to those individuals who seek authorization as: (1) An officer or director of two or more
Pursuant to 18 CFR 45.5, in the event that an applicant resigns or withdraws from Commission-authorized interlocked positions or is not re-elected or re-appointed to such interlocked positions, the Commission requires that the applicant submit a notice of change within 30 days from the date of the change.
The Commission uses the information required by 18 CFR 131.31 and collected by the Form 561 to implement the FPA requirement that those who are authorized to hold interlocked directorates annually disclose all the interlocked positions held within the prior year. The Form 561 data identifies persons holding interlocking positions between public utilities and other entities, allows the Commission to review these interlocking positions, and allows identification of possible conflicts of interest.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Great Bay Solar 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 2, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of charter renewal.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) is in the public interest and is necessary in connection with the performance of EPA's duties. Accordingly, ELAB will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of the ELAB is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues associated with enhancing EPA's measurement programs and the systems and standards of environmental accreditation. Inquiries may be directed to Lara P. Phelps, Senior Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Science Advisor, 109 T W Alexander Drive (E243-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 or by email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; recertification decision.
With this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) recertifies that the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) continues to comply with the “Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic (TRU) Radioactive Waste.”
This action represents the Agency's third periodic evaluation of the WIPP's continued compliance with the disposal regulations and WIPP Compliance Criteria. The WIPP Compliance Criteria implement and interpret the disposal regulations specifically for the WIPP. As directed by Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA), this “recertification” process is required every five years following the WIPP's initial receipt of TRU waste on March 26, 1999 (
This recertification decision is based on a thorough review of information submitted by the DOE, independent technical analyses, and public comments. The Agency has determined that the DOE continues to meet all applicable requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria, and with this action, recertifies the WIPP facility. This recertification decision does not otherwise amend or affect the EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations or the WIPP Compliance Criteria. In addition, recertification is not subject to rulemaking or judicial review, nor is it linked to the resumption of disposal activities at the WIPP facility. The EPA has also identified areas in which the DOE's technical analyses and justifications could be improved for the next recertification application.
Ray Lee, Radiation Protection Division, Mail Code 6608T, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9463; fax number: (202) 343-2305; email address:
1.
2.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a disposal system for defense-related transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste. The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA) of 1992 defines TRU waste as materials containing alpha-emitting radioisotopes, with half-lives greater than twenty years, in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram (nCi/g), except for (A) high-level radioactive waste; (B) waste that the Secretary has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator, does not need the degree of isolation required by the disposal regulations; or (C) waste that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved for disposal on a case-by-case basis in accordance with part 61 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the WIPP is located near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico. At the WIPP, the DOE disposes of radioactive waste 655 meters (2,150 feet) underground in an ancient salt layer which will eventually creep and encapsulate the waste. The WIPP has a total capacity to dispose of 6.2 million cubic feet of waste.
Congress initially authorized the development and construction of the WIPP in 1980 “for the express purpose of providing a research and development facility to demonstrate the safe disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the defense activities and programs of the United States.”
Most TRU waste proposed for disposal at the WIPP consists of items that have become contaminated as a result of activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons or with the clean-up of weapons production facilities,
The WIPP LWA provides the EPA the authority to oversee and regulate the WIPP. The WIPP LWA requires the EPA to conduct three main tasks, to be completed sequentially, to reach an initial compliance certification decision. First, the WIPP LWA requires the EPA to finalize general regulations for the disposal of highly-radioactive waste.
Second, the WIPP LWA requires the EPA to develop criteria, via rulemaking, to interpret and implement the general radioactive waste disposal regulations specifically as they apply to the WIPP. In 1996, the Agency issued the WIPP Compliance Criteria (40 CFR part 194).
Third, the WIPP LWA requires the EPA to review the information submitted by the DOE every five years to demonstrate continued compliance with the disposal regulations and determine whether or not the WIPP continues to be in compliance.
Since the EPA's initial certification, operation of the WIPP proceeded without substantial interruption until 2014. However, two events took place at the WIPP in February 2014 that led the DOE to suspend emplacement of additional waste in the facility for nearly three years. On February 5, a salt haul truck caught fire. Workers were evacuated, and the underground portion of the WIPP was shut down. On February 14, a second event occurred when a continuous air monitor alarmed during the night shift, signaling a detection of radiation. The continuous air monitor was measuring exhaust from waste panel 7, where waste emplacement had recently begun. Radiological contamination of the underground caused an indefinite suspension of waste handling activities.
After implementing numerous corrective actions, the DOE resumed limited waste emplacement on January 4, 2017, and also resumed limited shipments from waste generator sites. Resumption of waste emplacement at the WIPP is unrelated to the EPA's recertification decision, which is primarily concerned with compliance with the EPA's long-term disposal requirements. However, the DOE has acknowledged that recovery from the radiological release will result in design changes to the repository, which will need to be considered from that longer-term perspective. These changes include installation of a new ventilation shaft and modification of the waste panel layout to accommodate the premature closure of planned waste emplacement capacity in panel 9. The DOE is still reviewing options and has not provided any specific plans to the EPA. The EPA will review these changes as more information becomes available and they are incorporated into future recertification applications. The EPA recognizes that the current recertification decision is based on a repository design that is likely to change, but the current application contains the information necessary to reach a decision without knowing the details of the future changes. It is not unprecedented for the EPA to conduct a recertification review with the knowledge that the DOE will submit a request to change an aspect of the disposal system design.
The EPA expects that any issues associated with repository design changes will be appropriately addressed in responding to change requests from the DOE and in subsequent recertification applications. However, because these design changes are likely to be substantial, the EPA believes it is necessary for the DOE to ensure that future compliance recertification applications are as robust and technically defensible as possible. To that end, the EPA discusses in Section VI.D specific aspects of future compliance recertification applications that the Agency believes would benefit from independent technical review, or otherwise from thorough consideration of more recent scientific information and understanding of chemical processes anticipated to take place within the repository. The EPA strongly believes that incorporating such reviews and information into future applications will increase public confidence in the DOE's compliance demonstrations and facilitate the Agency's review.
The WIPP LWA, as amended, required the EPA to evaluate whether the WIPP complied with the EPA's standards for the disposal of radioactive waste. On May 18, 1998 (63 FR 27354-27406), the EPA determined that the WIPP met the standards for radioactive waste disposal. This decision allowed the DOE to begin placing radioactive waste in the WIPP, provided that all other applicable health and safety standards, and other legal requirements, were met. The WIPP received the first shipment of TRU waste on March 26, 1999. The complete record and basis for the EPA's 1998 certification decision can be found in Air Docket A-93-02.
Although the EPA determined that the DOE met all of the applicable requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria in the original certification decision, the EPA also found that it was necessary for the DOE to take additional steps to ensure that the measures actually implemented at the WIPP (and thus the circumstances expected to exist there) were consistent with the DOE's compliance certification application and with the basis for the EPA's compliance certification. As a result, the EPA included four explicit conditions in the WIPP certification of compliance (see 40 CFR part 194, Appendix A; WIPP Recertification Background Document in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609). These conditions are discussed in Section V.C of this document.
The first recertification process, which occurred in 2004-2006, included an EPA review of all changes made at the WIPP facility since the original 1998 certification decision. The Agency received the DOE's first compliance recertification application on March 26, 2004. The EPA issued the completeness determination
Following receipt of the DOE's second compliance recertification application on March 24, 2009, the EPA requested additional information from the DOE and the DOE responded with the requested supplemental information. All pertinent 2009 Compliance Recertification Application correspondence was placed in the docket (Docket ID No. OAR-2009-0330 on
The WIPP must comply with the EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations, located at subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 191. These regulations limit the amount of radioactive material which may escape from a disposal facility, and protect individuals and ground water resources from dangerous levels of radioactive contamination. In addition, the compliance recertification application and other information submitted by the DOE must meet the requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria at 40 CFR part 194. The WIPP Compliance Criteria implement and interpret the general disposal regulations specifically for the WIPP, and clarify the basis on which the EPA makes the certification decision.
In addition to the EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations, the WIPP must also comply with a number of other federal laws and regulations pertaining to public health and safety or the environment, including, for example, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)) (42 U.S.C. 6901
The EPA monitors and ensures continuing compliance with the EPA regulations through a variety of activities, including the following: review and evaluation of the DOE's annual change reports, monitoring of
The DOE must timely report any planned or unplanned changes in activities or conditions pertaining to the disposal system that differ significantly from the most recent compliance application and, at least annually, report any other changes in disposal system conditions or activities (40 CFR 194.4(b)(3), (4)). The Department must also report any releases of radioactive material from the disposal system (40 CFR 194.4(b)(3)(iii)). In addition, the EPA may request additional information from the DOE at any time (§ 194.4(b)(2)). These requirements assist the EPA with monitoring the performance of the disposal system and evaluating whether the certification should be modified, suspended or revoked.
In addition to reporting significant changes to the WIPP disposal system, the DOE is required to report at least annually other changes to the conditions or activities concerning the WIPP disposal system (40 CFR 194.4(b)(4)). The DOE submitted the first annual change report in November 1998.
The DOE's annual change reports reflect the progress of quality assurance and waste characterization inspections, minor changes to the DOE documents, information on monitoring activities and any additional EPA approvals for changes in activities. All correspondence and approvals regarding the annual change reports can be found in hard copy in the Air Docket A-98-49, Categories II-B2 and II-B3.
1. Panel Closure Rulemaking. Waste panel closure systems are required by the State of New Mexico during the WIPP's operational phase. Since they are a feature of the disposal system design, the EPA requires panel closures to be included in the long-term modeling of the repository. The panel closures impact long-term disposal system performance because they can impede brine and gas flow between waste panels. As originally promulgated, the WIPP Certification Condition 1 required the DOE to implement the Option D panel closure system at the WIPP, using Salado mass concrete.
2. Quality Assurance. Certification Condition 2 requires each TRU generator site to establish and execute a quality assurance program for waste characterization activities. Section 194.22 establishes quality assurance requirements for the WIPP. The DOE must adhere to a quality assurance program that implements the requirements of ASME NQA-1-1989 edition, ASME NQA-2a-1990 addenda, part 2.7, to ASME NQA-2-1989 edition, and ASME NQA-3-1989 edition (excluding Section 2.1 (b) and (c), and Section 17.1).The EPA determined that the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application provides adequate information to verify the establishment and implementation of each of the applicable elements of the ASME NQA-1-1989.The EPA has also verified the continued proper implementation of the Nuclear Quality Assurance Program through periodic audits conducted in accordance with § 194.22(e).
The EPA's determination of compliance with 40 CFR 194.22 can be found in Table 1 of the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application CARD 22. Between March 2008 and April 2012, the EPA conducted several quality assurance audits and found the site-specific quality assurance programs to be adequate. The EPA conducted quality assurance audits at several waste generator sites and entities supporting the WIPP Performance Assessment activities at Los Alamos and Sandia Laboratories. The EPA also audited the quality assurance program of the Carlsbad Field Office.
3. Waste Characterization. Certification Condition 3 requires TRU waste generator sites to have waste characterization systems approved by the EPA. The Agency has conducted numerous audits and inspections at waste generator sites in order to implement Condition 3 and the relevant provisions of 40 CFR part 194, including § 194.8. The EPA inspected site-specific TRU waste characterization programs implemented to (a) characterize physical and radiological components in individual waste containers and (b) demonstrate compliance with the WIPP waste disposal requirements at 40 CFR 194.24.
To support the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, the DOE reported the EPA's waste characterization inspections and approvals between January 2007 and December 2012 (see Table 1 in CARD 8). The EPA evaluated previously approved site-specific waste characterization program for continued compliance in accordance with 40 CFR 194.24, as well as changes to the systems of controls approved as part of the baseline (initial) approvals, and concluded them to be technically adequate. The TRU waste sites approved by the EPA to ship contact-handled TRU waste to the WIPP facility in accordance with the requirements of § 194.8 since the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application are as follows: Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project, Hanford's Richland Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Savannah River Site. Since the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application, the TRU waste sites approved by the EPA to ship remote-handled TRU waste to the WIPP facility in accordance with the requirements of § 194.8 are Argonne National Laboratory, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center, Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Savannah River Site. Since the 2009 Compliance
During the period covered by the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, all site-specific waste characterization systems of controls at active TRU waste generator sites had necessary baseline approvals. Over the years, when warranted, the EPA approved modification to waste characterization program components. Notices announcing the EPA inspections or audits are routinely published in the
Records of the EPA's quality assurance correspondences and waste characterization approvals can be found in Air Docket A-98-49, Categories II-A1 and II-A4, respectively, as well as online in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0012 on
4. Passive Institutional Controls. Certification Condition 4 requires the DOE to submit a schedule and plan for implementing passive institutional controls, including markers and other measures indicating the presence of the repository. The standards under the WIPP Certification Condition 4 do not require the submission of any reports until the final compliance recertification application prior to closure of the WIPP. The EPA has not received any submissions from the DOE during the period addressed by the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application and has not taken any actions relating to Condition 4. The EPA anticipates that it will evaluate the DOE's compliance with Condition 4 of the certification when the DOE submits a revised schedule and additional documentation regarding the implementation of passive institutional controls. Once received, the information will be placed in the EPA's public dockets, and the Agency will evaluate the adequacy of the documentation. After receiving Condition 4 submissions from the DOE, and during the operational period when waste is being emplaced in the WIPP (and before the site has been sealed and decommissioned), the EPA will verify that specific actions identified by the DOE in the compliance certification application, and supplementary information (and in any additional documentation submitted in accordance with Condition 4) are being taken to test and implement passive institutional controls.
The WIPP Compliance Criteria provide the EPA the authority to conduct inspections of activities at the WIPP and at off-site facilities which provide information relevant to compliance applications (40 CFR 194.21). The Agency has conducted periodic inspections to verify the adequacy of information relevant to certification applications. The EPA has conducted annual inspections at the WIPP site to review and ensure that the monitoring program meets the requirements of § 194.42. The EPA has also inspected the emplacement and tracking of waste in the repository. The Agency's inspection reports can be found in Air Docket A-98-49, Categories II-A1 and II-A4, as well as online at
The EPA determines, in accordance with WIPP LWA § 8(f)(2), that the WIPP facility is in compliance with the final disposal regulations, subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 191. Compliance recertification ensures that accurate and up-to-date information is considered in the determination that WIPP remains in compliance with these radioactive waste disposal regulations. The EPA makes this recertification and determination of continued compliance following the “Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the WIPP's Compliance with the 40 CFR part 191 Disposal Regulations” (WIPP Compliance Criteria, 40 CFR part 194), including the WIPP certification conditions (40 CFR part 194, Appendix A).
The disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191 include requirements for containment of radionuclides. The containment requirements at 40 CFR 191.13 specify that releases of radionuclides to the accessible environment
The disposal regulations provide that there must be a reasonable expectation that cumulative releases of radionuclides from the WIPP and into the environment over 10,000 years will not exceed specified quantities of these radionuclides (40 CFR 191.13 and Appendix A). A reasonable expectation standard is used because of the long time period involved and the nature of the events and processes at radioactive waste disposal facilities leads to uncertainties about future performance. The DOE's probabilistic performance assessments assess the likelihood of environmental radionuclide release so that future uncertainties are accounted for in the calculations through the use of alternative scenarios and variations in values of uncertain parameters via probability distributions.
The containment requirements in 40 CFR 191.13 are expressed in terms of “normalized releases.” At the WIPP, the specific release limits are based on the estimated amount of waste in the repository at the time of closure, and the projected releases are “normalized” against these limits (§ 194.31). Normalized releases are expressed as “EPA units”. The EPA units are calculated by dividing all the combined projected releases by the total combined radioactivity of all the waste in the repository.
The DOE must demonstrate, in each 5-year compliance recertification application, that the total average of combined releases are below two compliance criteria at a higher probability of occurrence and a lower probability of occurrence. These compliance points are as follows:
1. For a probability of 0.1 (a 1 in 10 chance) in 10,000 years, releases to the accessible environment will not exceed 1 EPA unit, and
2. For a probability of 0.001 (a 1 in 1,000 chance) in 10,000 years, releases to the accessible environment will not exceed 10 EPA units.
DOE evaluates four release mechanisms in the WIPP performance assessment modeling:
The DOE estimates the potential releases from these release mechanisms,
After reviewing the DOE's documentation and additional studies that the DOE conducted at EPA's request, the aspects of the performance assessment of most interest to EPA are those that affect the direct brine release mechanism, by which actinides
The key issues involving these aspects of the repository are: (1) The actinide solubility, which is addressed through changes to the geochemical database, colloid contribution updates and the determination of the actinide solubility uncertainty; (2) the probability of hitting a brine pocket under the repository; (3) the steel corrosion rate and steel's interactions with hydrogen sulfide and magnesium oxide (affecting the gas pressure); and (4) the overall modeling of direct brine releases that involve the interactions of items 1-3 plus the conditions of the repository (
The following information describes the EPA's compliance evaluation related to the disposal regulations and Compliance Criteria.
In general, compliance applications must include information relevant to demonstrating compliance with each of the individual sections of 40 CFR part 194 to determine if the WIPP will comply with the Agency's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C. The EPA begins the compliance recertification evaluation once the EPA receives a complete compliance recertification application (40 CFR 194.11).
To make this decision, the EPA evaluated basic information about the WIPP site and disposal system design, as well as information which addressed the various compliance criteria. As required by 40 CFR 194.15(a), the DOE's 2014 Compliance Recertification Application updated the previous submission in 2009.
On March 26, 2014, the DOE submitted the compliance recertification application. The EPA began to identify areas of the application where additional information was needed. On October 10, 2014, the EPA gave public notice of the compliance recertification application and opened the official public comment period (79 FR 61268). On January 13, 2017, the EPA sent a letter to the DOE stating that the DOE's recertification application was complete. On March 10, 2017, the EPA issued a
The EPA relied on materials prepared by the Agency or submitted by the DOE in response to the EPA requests. For example, the EPA requested that the DOE conduct specific, additional modeling calculations for the performance assessment, known as sensitivity studies. The purpose of these studies was to evaluate the impact on performance assessment results of changing specific parameter values. The studies aided the EPA in determining how significant the differences in some parameter values were to a demonstration of compliance. The four sensitivity studies and the EPA's evaluation of them are discussed in more detail in Section VI.E.
To determine whether the WIPP facility continues to be in compliance with the final disposal regulations, the EPA engaged in a technical review of the compliance recertification application against the WIPP Compliance Criteria. The Agency focused the review on areas of change identified by the DOE since the 2010 recertification decision.
The Agency produced many documents during the technical review and evaluation of the compliance recertification application. The EPA's Compliance Application Review Documents (CARDs) correspond in number to the sections of 40 CFR part 194 to which the documents primarily relate. Each CARD enumerates all changes made by the DOE relating to a particular section of the rule or certification criterion, and describes the EPA's process and conclusions. The EPA also prepared technical support documents (TSDs) to address specific topics in greater detail. Both the CARDs and the TSDs for this recertification decision can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609 on
In summary, the EPA's recertification decision is based on the entire record available to the Agency, which is located in the public docket dedicated to this recertification (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609 on
The DOE's WIPP compliance applications must include, at a minimum, basic information about the WIPP site and disposal system design, including information about the following topics: the geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and geochemistry of the WIPP disposal system and the WIPP vicinity; the WIPP materials of construction; standards applied to design and construction; background radiation in air, soil and water; and past and current climatological and meteorological conditions (40 CFR 194.14). Section 194.15 states that the DOE's recertification applications shall update this information to provide sufficient information for the EPA to determine whether or not the WIPP facility continues to be in compliance with the disposal regulations.
Before determining that the compliance recertification application was complete, the EPA raised numerous technical questions with the DOE, as described below. For each topic, a brief summary is provided of how the DOE addressed the issue in the 2014 application, followed by the EPA's perspective on the change, including any follow-up analyses requested. The DOE also updated the waste inventory. This topic is discussed in Section VI.F.1.
Since the initial Compliance Certification performance assessment, the DOE's calculated releases in performance assessments have increased with every performance assessment until the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application performance assessment. The changes the DOE made to the performance assessment in the current application reduce the calculated releases. For example, the calculated release of radionuclides at the low probability compliance point (a likelihood of less than a one in 1,000 chance), was assessed by the DOE in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application as 0.72 EPA Units, but in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, the similar calculated release initially was assessed as 0.261 EPA Units.
Changes that reduce the calculated releases involve the shear strength of the waste, revised steel corrosion rate, incorporating water balance as part of the chemical model implementation as it relates to steel corrosion and interactions with the magnesium oxide engineered barrier, correcting errors associated with brine volume mass balance and calculation of actinide solubility and the change to how the DOE calculates the probability of hitting a brine pocket under the repository. In general, the result of the DOE's methodology changes is to reduce calculated releases by about a factor of two between the 2009 and 2014 Compliance Recertification Applications at both the 0.1 and 0.001 probability compliance points.
The EPA has identified issues with some of these changes, but even with changes the EPA asked the DOE to investigate, projected releases stay well under the numerical release limits. For example, at the 0.001 probability compliance point where the EPA normalized release limit is 10 EPA units, the changes the EPA requested resulted in increased releases from 0.261 EPA units in the DOE's 2014 performance assessment to 0.299 EPA units in sensitivity study SEN3 and 0.541 EPA units in sensitivity study SEN4. The sensitivity studies are discussed in depth in Section VI.E.
The DOE also updated information on the type of plugs installed in exploratory, disposal and resource extraction boreholes. There are three types of borehole plugs used in the Delaware basin. There are boreholes that are continuously plugged through the entire salt section, and the DOE reports a slight increase in the use of this design. There are boreholes plugged with a two-plug configuration (at the Salado/Rustler and the Bell Canyon/Castile Formation interfaces). This two-plug design also slightly increased from that used in the 2009 application. There is also a three-plug configuration (
On September 28, 2011, the DOE provided a change request to the EPA (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0684) to modify the panel closure system design specified in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 194 from that of a concrete monolith plug, noted as Option D, to a 100-foot long barrier consisting of run-of-mine salt (EPA 2013; 2014). The panel closure system performance assessment release calculations were well within the numerical limits established in 40 CFR 191.13. The EPA approved the DOE's use of the proposed run-of-mine salt closure design (79 FR 60750, Oct. 8, 2014) (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0684-0004 on
The DOE incorporated the run-of-mine salt design for panel closures into the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application. To evaluate this change, the Agency reviewed a broad set of information related to the evolution of salt repository properties, including run-of-mine salt and adjacent disturbed rock zone in the WIPP repository setting (Salt Characteristics TSD
To identify the potential effect of the difference in the repository properties between what the EPA has identified may be applicable and what the DOE modeled, the Agency requested that the DOE analyze the repository performance using parameter values for the run-of-mine salt panel closure system and adjacent disturbed rock zone that simulate complete healing. The DOE did this in the sensitivity study SEN3 discussed in Section VI.E. The calculated releases increased for direct brine releases and spallings releases in SEN3, but overall releases remained well within the numerical limits of 40 CFR 191.13 and the EPA concludes that there is a reasonable expectation that the repository remains in compliance with the numerical limits at 40 CFR 191.13, and 40 CFR part 191, Appendix A.
If the DOE determines, in light of the announced decision to abandon the area previously designated for panel 9, that worker safety considerations preclude installing panel closures in affected areas of the repository, the DOE's treatment of panel closures in performance assessment may be more appropriately addressed in the context of modeling open areas representative of no panel closures. The Agency will review future panel closure modeling in the context of future facility design changes.
The results from the SEN2 studies indicate modeling creep closure and healing of the operations and experimental areas (
If, in the future, there are repository design changes that result in more non-waste drifts mined or left open in the facility, the issue of open areas will need to be re-evaluated in the context of those design changes, as releases could be expected to increase in that circumstance. The DOE's plan to abandon panel 9 would leave large areas of open space in the repository in the panel 9 drifts and possibly no panel closures for multiple panels. Performance assessment modeling should address these expected future repository conditions. The EPA believes that an independent technical review of issues related to salt behavior and modeling of open areas would be of benefit to the DOE as it further develops its plans.
In the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, the DOE changed the basis it used to develop the probability distribution for parameter PBRINE. The DOE's revision to the estimated probability of a future driller encountering pressurized brine relies heavily on voluntarily reported drilling logs
The EPA has several concerns regarding the DOE's update to the PBRINE parameter,
The Agency's revision to the PBRINE parameter was incorporated into Sensitivity Study SEN4. The study results indicate the modified PBRINE probability distribution contributed to an increase in estimated direct brine releases and increased the total releases at the 0.001 low probability compliance point to roughly double those in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application performance assessment.
The EPA reviewed the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application model and had concerns with the way the model addressed expected repository carbon dioxide concentrations in the experimental derivation of corrosion rates. The EPA also found that the model did not incorporate hydrogen sulfide induced steel passivation,
In addition, other components of this model, which the DOE considered to be minor, may have more impact. Calculations of the potential lead inventories at the WIPP only include current waste containers without accounting for the maximum potential of future containers.
To address the EPA's concerns about corrosion, part of the DOE's SEN4 sensitivity study involved turning off the hydrogen sulfide corrosion parameter to simulate steel passivation. These changes resulted in a slight increase in gas pressures as well as a decrease in the saturation of the waste area because both hydrogen gas and water were eliminated from the end products. Results from this study indicated that projected releases would remain within the limits of 40 CFR 191.13. Therefore, the EPA accepts the corrosion approach incorporated in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application. See Section VI.E for more discussion of the SEN4 study.
To ensure that future performance assessments adequately address the mechanisms that affect gas generation in the repository, it would be appropriate for the DOE to update the corrosion model to better address steel passivation and account for radiolysis and address lead corrosion to be consistent with the expected inventory of the repository.
In the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application the lower bound value was 0.05 Pa, while for the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application the lower bound of the distribution was increased to 2.22 Pa (the mean value from the laboratory flume tests). The upper bound of the distribution, 77 Pa, remained the same. The EPA believes the DOE's overall approach of using experimental data to revise the TAUFAIL parameter is reasonable; however, the EPA had concerns with the DOE's lower “bounding” range value derived from the experiments. The Agency was concerned that three of the five low shear-strength tests had highly scattered results. The DOE attributed the scatter to pre-test sample damage and/or a high degree of variability in sample preparation, rather than testing an equivalent suite of samples. As a result, the mean of the low shear strength test results may not be truly representative of low shear strength samples.
In the SEN4 study, the EPA requested the DOE include the lowest shear-strength flume test results (1.6 Pa) as the bounding value, rather than the average (2.22 Pa). The SEN4 results indicate modifying the lower range to include the lowest value as the bounding value insignificantly impacted releases. This is due to the fact that the change from 2.22 Pa to 1.6 Pa (
Previous compliance recertification applications only included anoxic corrosion in water balance calculations. The 2014 Compliance Recertification Application includes an assessment of the microbial degradation of the cellulosic, plastic and rubber material, the anoxic corrosion of iron in the steel waste canisters and reactions of the engineered barrier. The DOE did not change the rates for microbial cellulosic, plastic and rubber material degradation and water production from the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application. As discussed previously, the DOE revised steel corrosion rates. The DOE developed magnesium reaction rates for the compliance recertification application based on previous studies (Chemistry TSD
Although changes to each of these parameters is minor, the reactions will have a cumulative effect. Based on previous exchanges with the DOE (see comment 2-C-5 in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609) as well as the SEN4 sensitivity study, the water balance updates do not appear to significantly affect the WIPP performance. However, the EPA
In the original Compliance Certification Application, the colloid parameters were based on experimentally derived values examining actinide macromolecules or actinides sorbed onto biomass (
Because of issues with experimental data used to develop the 2014 colloid contributions to actinide solubility, the 2014 performance assessment calculations using those experimental results may underestimate colloidal concentrations, and therefore, actinide solubility. However, the EPA finds that the use of an updated uncertainty distribution for actinide solubility in the SEN4 sensitivity study provides adequate information to determine that an increase in colloid concentrations would not cause releases to exceed the disposal standards. The EPA recommends that additional review of the experimental results would benefit the DOE's treatment of colloid formation mechanisms in future performance assessments. The EPA's review of this topic is provided in the Chemistry TSD. See Section VI.E of this document for discussion of the SEN4 study.
a. Chemical Database. Actinide solubility, or the ability for actinide solids to dissolve in brine, is important in calculating releases. In performance assessment calculations, these radionuclides include americium, curium, neptunium, plutonium, thorium, and uranium. Americium(III) solubility is used to predict plutonium(III) and curium(III) concentrations while thorium(IV) is used to predict plutonium(IV), neptunium(IV) and uranium(IV).
The EPA's review identified that the DOE's update of the chemical assumptions used in the actinide solubility database (DATA0.FM1) did not reflect all data available prior to the DOE's data cut-off date of December 31, 2012.The EPA raised several issues (in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609-0010) about americium and thorium solubility and speciation and in response, the DOE modified the database to produce DATA0.FM2. However, the EPA identified flaws in the modified database that need to be corrected before it can be considered to be of sufficient quality for use in recertification. The EPA concluded that, even with identified data gaps, the original DATA0.FM1 database was of higher quality and provided sufficient information to support a determination of continued compliance. The DOE's updates of the chemical database for future performance assessments should more comprehensively incorporate recent data.
b. Revised Radionuclide Uncertainty Distribution. The DOE also examined the uncertainty distribution used to model the +III and +IV actinide concentrations in the performance assessment by comparing modeled solubility calculations to experimental data from multiple reports and peer-reviewed studies. These studies include solubility measurements from americium, thorium and their analogues using a specific set of criteria (Chemistry TSD; 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, Appendix SOTERM-2014 Section 5.1.3). During the performance assessment solubility calculations, this uncertainty distribution is sampled and used in calculating dissolved actinides in a release.
After reviewing the actinide solubility uncertainty distribution for the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, the EPA identified relevant studies that were not considered in developing this distribution, as well as identifying studies that should have been excluded from consideration, based on the DOE's evaluation criteria. Using relevant studies would result in a revised actinide solubility uncertainty distribution with overall higher +III
The EPA recommends that updating the actinide solubility uncertainty distribution should be part of the update to the geochemical database. This would include incorporating new solubility data for thorium and americium under the WIPP repository conditions, and re-evaluating how studies are included in or excluded from the DOE's analyses.
c. Plutonium Oxidation State. Oxidation states refer to an actinide ion's charge. Actinides with a higher charge likely exist in environments with greater oxygen content while actinides with lower charges likely exist where there is less oxygen. Although plutonium has multiple oxidation states including +VI, +V, +IV, and +III, the WIPP model assumes plutonium oxidation state is dominated by the +III or +IV charge in the aqueous phase due to the rapid removal of oxygen in the repository. Identifying the dominant oxidation state is particularly important as plutonium(III) is much more soluble than plutonium(IV). To address this uncertainty, the plutonium oxidation state model does not calculate oxidation state but instead considers plutonium(III) in 50% of the realizations and plutonium(IV) in the other 50%. Since the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application, experiments have verified that the iron metal corrosion of the WIPP waste containers largely mediate the conditions conducive to plutonium(IV) and plutonium(III) oxidation states. While experiments have confirmed the WIPP conditions post-closure, the debate has shifted towards whether plutonium(IV) or plutonium(III) is dominant in the WIPP conditions, or whether they will be present in equal proportions. More recent experimental information leads the EPA to believe that, under the WIPP conditions, aqueous plutonium(III) will be the dominant state of plutonium and will exist in equilibrium with the different solid plutonium phases present. In addition, organic ligands, iron and microbial processes will also increase the likelihood that plutonium(III) will dominate in solutions.
While the sensitivity studies did not directly test the presumption that +III and +IV species would be equally present, the SEN4 study indirectly examined this proposition by including a modified solubility uncertainty distribution that was more heavily weighted toward higher +III solubility (see Section VI.E.2.d). Both the compliance recertification application and the SEN4 study indicate plutonium release levels will be below the compliance points. Combined with the related analysis of the actinide solubility uncertainty distributions, the Agency can accept the DOE's assumption that the plutonium(III) and plutonium(IV) oxidation states will each occur 50% of the time in performance assessment calculations for the current recertification. However, because of the available data that the EPA has identified supporting the presence of plutonium(III) over plutonium(IV), the EPA believes this issue is of sufficient significance to benefit from independent technical review of the available data and the assumption that both plutonium oxidation states will occur equally under the WIPP conditions. The EPA's review of the plutonium oxidation state issue is addressed more thoroughly in the Chemistry TSD.
1. Overview. Section VI.A provided a basic description of the requirements in 40 CFR 191.13 and the performance assessment process required to show compliance with those standards. This section provides additional information on performance assessment and how it is evaluated by the EPA in the compliance recertification application. As described earlier, the DOE must use the performance assessment to demonstrate compliance with the containment requirements in 40 CFR 191.13. The containment requirements are expressed in terms of “normalized releases.” The DOE assembles the results of the performance assessment into complementary cumulative distribution functions, which indicate the probability of exceeding various levels of normalized releases (§ 194.34).
For both of the DOE's 2004 and 2009 Compliance Recertification Applications, the EPA requested that the DOE modify those respective performance assessments to (1) address completeness and technical issues raised during the EPA review process and with these modifications, and (2) assure the disposal regulations were met.
These additional sets of calculations have been termed by the DOE to be performance assessment “baseline calculations” and the EPA has considered these calculations as updated “baselines” for each respective compliance recertification application. The EPA then used these baseline calculations for the comparison performance assessment in each of the DOE's subsequent five-year compliance recertification applications.
In this recertification review process, the Agency proceeded differently than in the past. During the completeness review, the EPA identified issues with parameters or approaches used by the DOE in the calculations. These have been discussed in Section VI.D. The Agency requested that the DOE conduct additional calculations so the EPA could better understand how alternative parameter values would affect repository performance. These calculations, or sensitivity studies as they have been referred to, are summarized below and are the subject of a TSD.
The Agency requested that the DOE conduct four sensitivity studies (labeled as SEN1, SEN2, SEN3 and SEN4) to address technical concerns raised during the EPA's 2014 Compliance Recertification Application review. The EPA has compared these sensitivity results to the DOE's 2014 performance assessment calculations. The purpose of these sensitivity studies is to provide an understanding of how repository
The ability of salt openings and aggregates to quickly compress, consolidate and “heal” within a few hundred years, mostly due to the creep-closure process, is one of the unique properties of bedded salt geologic units that make them potentially suitable to use as nuclear waste repositories. The DOE's 2014 performance assessment parameter values assigned to the non-waste rooms, the panel closure system and the adjacent disturbed rock zone did not reflect the creep-closure and rapid healing of these areas that the EPA expects to occur. That is, the DOE did not use permeability, porosity, residual gas and brine saturations and capillary pressures reflective of in-situ (
Three of the EPA requested sensitivity studies, SEN1, SEN2 and SEN3, focused on modifying parameters to test how assuming complete creep-closure and healing of these areas would impact long-term performance through modifying values related to the permeability, porosity and two-phase flow parameter values for the run-of-mine salt panel closure system, the disturbed rock zone and non-waste areas for the 10,000-year modeled period. The fourth sensitivity study, SEN4, investigated the cumulative effects and impact on repository performance by making changes to five important parameter values as well as using an updated numerical code.
As with the 2014 performance assessment, all of the sensitivity studies had three replicate calculation sets and included the same future scenarios. The four scenarios are briefly described below:
(1) The undisturbed scenario—where the repository is not impacted by human activities,
(2) The E1 Scenario—where one or more boreholes penetrate a Castile brine reservoir and also intersect a repository waste panel,
(3) The E2 Scenario—where one or more boreholes intersect a repository waste panel but not a brine reservoir, and
(4) The E1/E2 Scenario—where there are multiple penetrations of waste panels by boreholes of either the E1 or E2 type, at many possible combinations of intrusion times and locations for either E1 or E2 drilling type of event.
a. The SEN1 Study. The intention of the SEN1 study was to determine the impact on repository performance by modeling the stepped (
This study had to be terminated because the numerical flow code used in these calculations produced non-physical and unrealistic results when these parameters were modified in time-intervals to reflect healing. The Agency accepted termination of this study, in part, because modeling changes in these values for the first 200 years, a relatively short time compared to the 10,000-year regulatory time period, would not be as important to long-term repository performance. The Agency considered that the SEN2 and SEN3 studies described below adequately addressed the issues targeted by the SEN1 study because the latter two studies both modeled the open and disturbed areas as fully healed for the entire 10,000-year regulatory time period, essentially bounding the conditions specified for the SEN1 study.
b. The SEN2 Study. This study tested the impacts on repository performance by modeling the non-waste areas and open drifts as completely creep-closed during the entire 10,000-year regulatory period. In this study, parameter values for all the non-waste areas (
Compared to the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application performance assessment, the SEN2 study waste room pressures generally increased and brine saturations decreased. The most affected primary release mechanism saw an increase in solid waste moving up a borehole (spallings) because this release mechanism increases when waste panel pressure increase. All other release mechanisms remained essentially unchanged from the 2014 performance assessment calculations. Total spallings releases remained small compared with cuttings, cavings and direct brine releases. Spallings releases therefore did not materially contribute to total repository releases in either SEN2 or the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application.
c. The SEN3 Study. For the SEN3 study, the DOE assumed that the panel closure system, the adjacent disturbed rock zone and the non-waste areas and open drifts are healed for the 10,000-year regulatory period. The DOE reduced porosity and permeability in the repository, increasing initial residual brine and gas saturations, and invoking two-phase flow parameters for intact halite. Using these modifications effectively isolated the individual waste panels and the non-waste areas from one another for the entire modeled period due to limited brine and gas flows between areas of the repository.
The modifications made in the SEN3 study caused increases in waste-panel pressures and decreases in waste panel saturations. The dominant releases were from spallings, which are only dependent on a waste panel pressure high enough to force solids to the surface, and direct brine releases, which are dependent on having sufficient brine in the waste panels coupled with high enough pressure to force brine to the surface. The release mechanism that increased the most was for spallings, and the increase was seen at both the low and high probability compliance points. The impact on direct brine release was primarily at low probabilities because this release depends on both high waste panel pressure and high saturation conditions, the combination of which were less likely to occur in this study.
Factoring in all combined releases, the total mean and low-probability (0.001 probability) releases increased by approximately 15% from the initial 2014 Compliance Recertification Application results, although the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was essentially the same as in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (0.384 EPA Units in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application and 0.387 EPA Units in SEN3). Total releases did not exceed the EPA's WIPP release limits.
The parameter values used in the SEN3 study created a “tight” repository (panel closure system, disturbed rock zone and non-waste rooms) in which brine and gas flow is limited. The study results indicate that such conditions may produce calculated releases higher than the more open and brine- and gas-conducive set of conditions presented by the DOE in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application.
i. Overview. The fourth sensitivity study was intended to understand the cumulative effects on repository performance by making changes to
• Use the EPA's updated distribution for the probability of intersecting a waste panel and a Castile brine reservoir, denoted as the PBRINE parameter and discussed in Section VI.D.1.d previously.
• Use the revised data set for the plutonium oxidation state uncertainty distribution discussed in Section VI.D.2.c.
• Modify the lower limit for the parameter that predicts waste strength, denoted as the parameter TAUFAIL discussed in Section VI.D.1.f.
• Use the updated version of the computer code DRSPALL that models waste carried up a borehole. After the 2014 performance assessment calculations had been completed and submitted to the EPA, the DOE discovered an error in the computer code, DRSPALL. The DOE corrected this error and reported it to the EPA. For the SEN4 study, the EPA requested that the DOE use the corrected version.
• Eliminate the hydrogen sulfide reaction with iron as discussion in Section VI.D.1.e.
• Use the correct modeled length for north panel closure. The WIPP repository design includes two sets of panel closures emplaced at the north end of the repository. For the 2014 performance assessment calculations, the DOE modeled the “effective” length of only one panel closure rather than two. The EPA requested that the DOE increase the effective length of the modeled north waste panel to be consistent with the facility design.
ii. Cumulative effects of the changes evaluated by release pathway.
aa. Direct Brine Releases. Direct brine releases are a function of actinide solubility, repository pressure and brine saturation. Of these changes, the most significant are the revised solubility uncertainty distributions that increase the concentration of the more soluble plutonium(III) in repository brine, the increased likelihood of a higher probability of hitting a brine pocket and the iron sulfidation reaction stoichiometric coefficient changes. The combined effects of these changes increased direct brine calculated releases and total mean low probability (0.001) repository releases to about twice those of the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application performance assessment (0.541 EPA Units for SEN4 versus 0.261 EPA Units for 2014 performance assessment).
bb. Spallings Releases. Spallings releases are affected in SEN4 by a combination of corrections using the updated version of the DRSPALL code as well as increases in repository pressure. Repository pressure was generally increased in SEN4 as a result of the updated distribution of the PBRINE parameter, the increased length of the northernmost panel closure and the updated iron sulfidation reaction stoichiometric coefficients. The combined effect of these changes was to increase spallings releases by about half an order of magnitude. However, spallings releases remained low compared to direct brine releases and the effect of this increase in spallings on total mean releases was minimal.
cc. Cuttings and Cavings Releases. Cavings releases were affected by the Agency's requested reduction of the lower bound of the distribution for the TAUFAIL parameter. The small reduction in the lower bound did not have a meaningful effect on total mean releases.
dd. Releases from the Culebra. Releases from lateral flow through the Culebra Dolomite are a function of actinide solubility, repository pressure, and brine saturation. These are affected by the revised solubility uncertainty distributions, the increased likelihood of sampling higher values for the PBRINE parameter, the increased length of the northernmost panel closure and removal of the iron sulfidation reactions. The combined effect of these changes on Culebra releases was too small to have a meaningful effect on total mean repository releases.
ee. Insights from the SEN4 Study. In the SEN4 study, the most significant effects on repository performance were an increase in direct brine releases and, by extension, an increase in total low probability repository releases. The Agency concludes that these increases were primarily the result of updating the solubility uncertainty distributions, updating the distribution of PBRINE and incorporating hydrogen sulfide steel passivation. The remaining changes, updating the TAUFAIL lower bound, using the corrections in the code DRSPALL and correcting the panel closure length, provided important updates and corrections to the performance calculation but had only a negligible effect on total mean releases. As in the previous sensitivity studies, the total mean releases, the upper 95% confidence limit on those means and all individual vectors in the three replicates remained below regulatory limits in SEN4.
3. How the Four Sensitivity Studies Affect the WIPP's Compliance. The results indicate that modifications to the selected parameters reported in these evaluations increased calculated releases. However, the total mean releases, the upper 95% confidence limit on those means, and all individual vectors in the three replicates remained below the EPA's WIPP release limits.
These sensitivity studies were intended to address a subset of the EPA technical issues. These studies do not address all the technical issues identified in the EPA's 2014 Compliance Recertification Application review. The major issues identified in the EPA's review primarily influence the direct brine releases and how the performance assessment addresses those releases. The EPA recommends that, especially with respect to calculating direct brine releases, the DOE re-evaluate the implementation of features, events and processes, along with model assumptions, to ensure their appropriate integration in the 2019 Compliance Recertification Application. The EPA has identified two areas in particular (modeling of open areas and plutonium oxidation states) that the Agency believes would greatly benefit from independent technical review for consideration in the DOE's 2019 Compliance Recertification Application.
This section summarizes the EPA's review as it relates to specific sections of the WIPP Compliance Criteria in 40 CFR part 194 that do not directly involve performance assessment.
Information on continuing compliance activities related to waste characterization (40 CFR 194.8 and 194.24), inspections (§ 194.21) and quality assurance (§ 194.22) may be found in Section V of this document.
The DOE did not conduct any activities during the period covered by the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application related to future state assumptions (§ 194.25), expert judgment (§ 194.26) or assurance requirements (§ 194.41-46). See the corresponding CARDs for more discussion. Information on passive institutional controls, which is an element of the assurance
1. Waste Characterization (Waste Inventory) (§ 194.24). Section 194.24 generally requires the DOE to identify, quantify and track the important chemical, radiological and physical components of the waste destined for disposal at the WIPP. The DOE collects data from generator sites and compiles the waste inventory on an annual basis. The DOE's 2012 Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR 2012), which was used for the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, reflects the disposal intentions of the waste generator sites as of December 31, 2010. The DOE classified the wastes as emplaced, stored or projected (to-be-generated). The DOE used data from the WIPP database to identify the characteristics of the waste that has been emplaced at the WIPP. The projected wastes were categorized similarly to existing waste (
The EPA reviewed the compliance recertification application and supplemental information to determine whether these documents provided a sufficiently complete estimate and description of the chemical, radiological and physical composition of the emplaced, stored and projected wastes proposed for disposal in the WIPP. The Agency also reviewed the DOE's description of the approximate quantities of waste components (for both existing and projected wastes). The EPA found that the radionuclides, cellulosic, plastic and rubber materials, organic ligands, oxyanions and cements in the waste are being appropriately tracked and characterized. In the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, there is an update on the inventory of curium and neptunium, which remain in concentrations well below their solubility limits even after accounting for decay. The EPA accepts this updated inventory, which is relatively similar to the one used in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application. See the Baseline Inventory TSD
2. Peer Review (§ 194.27). Section 194.27 of the WIPP Compliance Criteria requires the DOE to conduct peer review evaluations, when warranted, of conceptual models, waste characterization analyses, and a comparative study of engineered barriers. The required peer reviews must be performed in accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's NUREG-1297, “Peer Review for High-Level Nuclear Waste Repositories,” which establishes guidelines for the conduct of a peer review exercise. The DOE has conducted one peer review since the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application to establish radiological properties for two waste streams, titled the “Savannah River Site Historical Radiochemistry Data Peer Review,” demonstrating its compliance with the requirements of § 194.27.
Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application and supplemental information provided by the DOE (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609-0330), the EPA determines that the DOE continues to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 194.27.
Sections 194.51 through 194.55 of the WIPP Compliance Criteria implement the individual protection requirements of 40 CFR 191.15 and the groundwater protection requirements of subpart C of 40 CFR part 191. Assessment of the likelihood that the WIPP will meet the individual dose limits and radionuclide concentration limits for ground water is conducted through a process known as compliance assessment. Compliance assessment uses methods similar to those of performance assessment (for the containment requirements in 40 CFR 191.13 and Appendix A) but is required to address only undisturbed performance of the disposal system. That is, compliance assessment does not include human intrusion scenarios (
In the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, the DOE re-evaluated each of the individual and groundwater requirements. The DOE updated the data for ground water quantity determination to define an underground source of drinking water for purposes of calculating groundwater concentrations and doses. In the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application, the DOE used 2011 (U.S. Bureau of Census 2013) census data to update the number of persons per household.
The updates made by the DOE in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application did not significantly impact the conclusions regarding the groundwater standard in the Compliance Certification Application. The DOE did not change the criteria for making underground source of drinking water determinations, and for the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application evaluation, the maximum potential dose remains below the Compliance Certification Application value calculated and continued compliance with the individual protection standard is maintained. The DOE states that the conservative bounding analysis used for the 1998 certification decision compliance assessment is still applicable for 2014 Compliance Recertification Application.
The EPA finds the DOE in continued compliance with 40 CFR 194.51-194.55 requirements.
The EPA interacts with the public through various means. The EPA's main mechanism for distributing information is the EPA Web site and email messages via the WIPP-NEWS listserv. The EPA will also occasionally have meetings, in person or via teleconferences or webinars.
Throughout the recertification process, the Agency posted pertinent new information and updates on the EPA WIPP Web site (
Since October 2014, the EPA has sent out numerous announcements regarding the recertification schedule and availability of any WIPP-related documents on the EPA WIPP Web site and the dockets, as well as details for the Agency's June 2015 stakeholder meetings in New Mexico and January 2017 stakeholder webinar (via Adobe Connect).
As discussed in the WIPP LWA, the recertification process is not a rulemaking and public hearings are not required. However, the EPA held a series of stakeholder meetings in June 2015 (Carlsbad and Albuquerque, NM) as well as a stakeholder webinar in January 2017 (via Adobe Connect software, with public hosting locations in Carlsbad and Albuquerque, NM) to provide information and updates about the recertification process. In an effort to make these meetings as informative as possible to all attending parties, the EPA listened to stakeholder input and concerns and tailored the meetings around the public as much as possible. The first meeting was held on June 16, 2015, in Carlsbad, New Mexico and consisted of one three-hour afternoon session. The second public meeting was held on June 17, 2015, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with afternoon and evening sessions.
The main purpose of these meetings was to discuss the EPA's recertification process and timeline, as well as the DOE's application and important changes at the WIPP since the last recertification in 2010. The meetings featured brief presentations on the aforementioned topics, as well as a facilitated discussion. In response to stakeholder suggestions, the DOE staff members were also on hand to provide information and answer any stakeholder questions. Staff from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) were present as observers. Public participants were encouraged to provide comments to the EPA for consideration during review of the DOE's 2014 Compliance Recertification Application.
The EPA also held a stakeholder webinar using the Adobe Connect software on January 12, 2017. The Agency hosted the webinar from Washington, DC, with physical hosting locations set up in both Carlsbad and Albuquerque, NM, to accommodate members of the public as well as the DOE and NMED staff. The main purpose of this webinar was to inform the public of the current recertification schedule and provide updated technical information related to stakeholder questions and comments received at the June 2015 meetings.
All of the issues raised at these meetings have been addressed by the EPA in Section VII.C of this document or in the CARDs under the relevant section and are available in the public docket (
The EPA posted the recertification application on the Web site immediately following receipt. The EPA formally announced receipt of the recertification application in the
For recertification, the EPA sought public comments and input related to changes in the DOE's application that may have a potential impact on the WIPP's ability to remain in compliance with the EPA's disposal regulations.
The comment period for the recertification application closed on April 10, 2017, approximately two years and six months after it initially opened. This closing date was 30 days after the EPA's announcement in the
The EPA received 17 sets of written public comments during the public comment period. The EPA considered significant comments from the written submissions and the stakeholder meetings in the evaluation of continuing compliance. The EPA addresses these comments in CARDs that are relevant to each topic. In addition, a listing of all comments received and responses to each is included in Appendix 15-C of CARD 15. Two specific comments are addressed here.
In a related comment, on February 3, 2017, the DOE, responded to this commenter and stated that the Argonne Lab waste is derived from atomic energy defense activities and did not contain any spent nuclear fuel (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609-0042). The DOE acknowledged that the WIPP LWA prohibits the disposal at WIPP of spent nuclear fuel and also acknowledged that some of the waste from the Argonne Lab was debris from specimens taken from fuel pins that were originally irradiated in commercial nuclear reactors. However, the DOE commented that the statutory definition of spent nuclear fuel does not speak directly to the issue of whether debris from specimens of commercial fuel rods is spent nuclear fuel. The DOE explained that, here, the debris—although including material that originated from fuel pins that had been irradiated in nuclear reactors—resulted from research and development activities at Argonne. The DOE stated that to try to segregate debris originating from irradiated fuel pins from other waste would be technically infeasible and cost prohibitive and would increase worker exposure. The DOE asserted that resolution of whether the material should be considered spent nuclear fuel was within its discretion and that it was its longstanding practice to classify such debris as waste and not spent nuclear fuel. In response to the DOE's February 3, 2017 comment, the original commenter resubmitted his original comment.
Reasonable contentions may be made that fragments and particulates resulting from research and development activities on specimens from fuel withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation (“pieces of pieces” of fuel pins) do not meet the statutory definition of spent nuclear fuel. The practical considerations of feasibility, cost, and worker safety associated with attempting to segregate such particulates from other waste shipped to the WIPP bear consideration. It is not essential, however, to the EPA's present recertification decision to attempt to definitively resolve this issue, because the current disposal regulations do not expressly address disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
On an on-going basis, aside from the periodic recertification of the WIPP, the EPA communicates with the DOE concerning the characterization of WIPP waste. The DOE provides the EPA with documentation relating to WIPP waste streams, including but not limited to, waste from the Argonne National Laboratory, and including documentation for both contact handled and remote handled TRU waste streams. The relevant information is confirmed by analyzing individual waste containers using the EPA approved processes, procedures and equipment. These steps allow the DOE to demonstrate that waste containers for WIPP disposal meet the EPA's WIPP waste limits for physical and radiological contents of the waste. So, concerning the waste shipped from Argonne National Laboratory, the EPA evaluated the waste characteristic information prepared for remote handled waste. The DOE provided historical information to document that waste generated from laboratory experiments at Argonne was defense related, and through radiological assay concluded that the waste in question met the definition of TRU waste and was appropriate for disposal at the WIPP. Following this determination, Argonne provided this waste for characterization. Radiological and physical characterization confirmed that the TRU waste in question (a) is remote handled waste; (b) exhibits the characteristics of debris waste; and (c) meets the regulatory limits of the EPA's WIPP waste acceptance requirements at 40 CFR 194.24.
The EPA thoroughly inspects and approves the waste characterization processes in place at all waste characterization sites including Argonne National Laboratory. As part of the waste characterization inspections and approvals, the EPA is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of characterization methods used to identify and measure radiological and physical contents of the TRU waste that affect the long term containment and isolation of waste at the WIPP and for ensuring that the WIPP-bound waste meets the disposal requirements under 40 CFR 194.24.
The CARDs discuss DOE's compliance with each of the individual requirements of the WIPP Compliance Criteria. The CARDs also list the EPA TSDs and any other references used by the EPA in rendering the decision on compliance. All TSDs and references are available in the Agency's dockets, via
For more general information and updates on the EPA's WIPP activities, please visit the WIPP internet homepage at <
In accordance with 40 CFR 194.67, the EPA maintains public dockets via
The EPA's regulatory role at the WIPP does not end with this recertification decision. The Agency's future WIPP activities include additional recertifications every five years (the next being scheduled to be submitted by the DOE in March 2019), review of the DOE reports on conditions and activities at the WIPP, assessment of waste characterization and quality assurance programs at waste generator sites, announced and unannounced inspections of the WIPP and other facilities and, if necessary, modification, revocation or suspension of the certification.
As a result of the February 2014 incidents at the WIPP, the DOE will be making changes to the repository design. The DOE has indicated that it no longer plans to use panel 9 for waste operations due to the worker safety hazards in that location, so an alternative panel will be needed. This decision may also have implications for panel closures in the panels accessed through the panel 9 drifts (
As described in Section VI of this notice, the EPA's review of the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application identified where the DOE's technical basis for the modeling has limitations with assumptions used or with the basis for some parameter values. The EPA concerns with these limitations were generally addressed by the results of the SEN studies. While this approach of using a series of sensitivity studies to examine identified limitations was sufficient in the context of this compliance recertification application, it was to some extent driven by the known upcoming physical changes in the repository. The EPA would prefer to be able to evaluate a complete revised performance assessment in future compliance recertification application reviews. The EPA recommends that the performance assessment technical basis be evaluated for improvement in these areas: (1) Calculations of actinide solubility, (2) modeling the chemical conditions in the repository, and (3) modeling direct brine releases.
Although not required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the WIPP LWA or the WIPP Compliance Criteria, the EPA intends to continue docketing all inspection or audit reports and annual reports and other significant documents on conditions and activities at the WIPP, as well as formal communications between the two agencies.
The EPA plans to conduct future recertification processes using an administrative process generally similar to that described in today's action.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the Territory of U.S. Virgin Islands' request to revise its EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective July 19, 2017.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On July 7, 2017, the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning & Natural Resources (VI DPNR) submitted an application titled “NPDES e-Reporting Tool” for revision to its EPA-approved program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed VI DPNR's request to revise its EPA-authorized Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve U.S. Virgin Islands' request to revise its Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122 and 125 is being published in the
VI DPNR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator and Region 10 Regional Administrator are requesting public comment on this proposal to withdraw the EPA Region 10 July 2014 Proposed Determination that was issued pursuant of the Clean Water Act, to restrict the use of certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli River, North Fork Koktuli River, and Upper Talarik Creek watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit, a copper-, gold-, and molybdenum-bearing ore body. EPA agreed to initiate this proposed withdrawal process as part of a May 11, 2017 settlement agreement with the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), whose subsidiaries own the mineral claims to the Pebble deposit. The Agency is taking today's action to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the rationale for the proposed withdrawal.
Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2017.
To submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369, refer to section I.C. of the
Visit
•
•
•
•
On July 21, 2014, EPA Region 10 published in the
The Pebble Limited Partnership (“PLP”), whose subsidiaries own the mineral claims to the Pebble deposit, have not yet filed a CWA Section 404 permit application (“permit application”) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”). EPA Region 10's initiation of the section 404(c) process did not prohibit PLP from filing a permit application and the Army Corps could have processed such a permit application while a section 404(c) review was ongoing. The Army Corps could not have, however, issued a final decision on a permit application while a section 404(c) process remained open and unresolved. 33 CFR 323.6(b).
In 2014, PLP filed three lawsuits against EPA relating to the Agency's work in the Bristol Bay watershed. As part of one of the lawsuits, PLP obtained a preliminary injunction on November 25, 2014, which halted EPA Region 10's section 404(c) review process until the case was resolved in May of 2017. Prior to the preliminary injunction, the next step in the section 404(c) process would have been for EPA Region 10 to either forward a Recommended Determination to EPA Headquarters or to withdraw the Proposed Determination pursuant to 40 CFR 231.5(a).
The EPA and PLP resolved all outstanding lawsuits in a May 11, 2017 settlement agreement and the court subsequently dissolved the injunction and dismissed the case. Under the settlement agreement, the EPA agreed to “initiate a process to propose to withdraw the Proposed Determination.” Settlement Agreement at page 5,
Pursuant to the settlement agreement and policy direction from EPA's Administrator, EPA is proposing to withdraw the July 2014 Proposed Determination at this time and is taking public comment on this proposal. The proposal reflects the Administrator's decision to provide PLP with additional time to submit a permit application to the Army Corps and potentially allow the Army Corps permitting process to initiate without having an open and unresolved section 404(c) review. While the pendency of a section 404(c) review would not preclude PLP from submitting an application and the Army Corps from reviewing that application, as noted above, the Army Corps could not have issued a permit while a section 404(c) process was ongoing. A withdrawal of the Proposed Determination would remove any uncertainty, real or perceived, about PLP's ability to submit a permit application and have that permit application reviewed. Because the Agency retains the right under the settlement agreement to ultimately exercise the full extent of its discretion under section 404(c), including the discretion to act prior to any potential Army Corps authorization of discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit, the Agency believes that withdrawing the Proposed Determination now, while allowing the factual record regarding any forthcoming permit application to develop, is appropriate at this time for this particular matter.
The Agency is only seeking public comment on whether to withdraw the July 2014 Proposed Determination at this time for the reasons stated above. In light of the basis upon which EPA is considering withdrawal of the Proposed Determination, EPA is not soliciting comment on the proposed restrictions or on science or technical information underlying the Proposed Determination. While EPA's regulations provide for a specified time period for decision making in 40 CFR 231.5(a), EPA has determined that there is good cause to extend this period under 40 CFR 231.8 to allow for this process and full consideration of the comments submitted.
Under EPA's regulations, when a Regional Administrator decides to withdraw a proposed determination, the Regional Administrator is required to notify the Administrator of such decision. The Administrator then has ten days to determine whether to review the withdrawal decision. The regulations also require the Administrator to provide notice to “all persons who commented on the proposed determination or participated at the hearing,” and specifies that “[s]uch persons may submit timely written recommendations concerning review.” 40 CFR 231.5(c). Rather than require parties to comment on today's proposed withdrawal of the Proposed Determination and then to comment again should the Regional Administrator finalize the withdrawal and forward it to the Administrator, the EPA is providing notice through this
Providing the opportunity to make recommendations regarding the potential for Administrator review in today's notice is the most efficient and effective way to provide such an opportunity. The Administrator is actively engaged in this matter because of his involvement with and direction regarding the settlement agreement, and this process enables the Administrator to effectively receive and consider any such recommendations that are submitted. Finally, this approach provides for earlier input by the public in the process (
In summary, the EPA is seeking comments on:
• Whether to withdraw the July 2014 Proposed Determination at this time for the reasons stated above; and
• if a final withdrawal decision is made following this comment period, whether the Administrator should review and reconsider the withdrawal decision.
Following the close of the public comment period, in making the decision whether to withdraw the July 2014 Proposed Determination the EPA will consider the public comments submitted in response to this notice consistent with 40 CFR 231.5.
Please see the section entitled
The record will remain open for comments until October 17, 2017. EPA has received a number of emails and letters regarding the July 2014 Proposed Determination since EPA announced the May 11, 2017 settlement agreement. EPA will enter this correspondence into the docket and all comments, including this correspondence, will be fully considered as the EPA Administrator and Region 10 Regional Administrator decide whether to withdraw the July 2014 Proposed Determination at this time.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 11, 2017.
1.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.
Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of the Integrated Award Environment, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of the currently approved information collection requirement regarding FSRS Registration Requirements for Prime Grant Awardees. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before August 18, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
John Corro, Procurement Analyst, Office of the Integrated Award Environment, GSA, at telephone number 202-215-9767; or via email at
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (P.L.109-282, as amended by section 6202(a) of P.L.110-252), known as FFATA or the Transparency Act, requires information disclosure of entities receiving Federal financial assistance through Federal awards such as Federal contracts, sub-contracts, grants and sub-grants, FFATA 2(a),(2),(i),(ii). The system that collects this information is called the FFATA Sub-award Reporting System (FSRS,
If a prime awardee has already registered in FSRS to report contracts-related Transparency Act financial data, a new log-in will not be required. In addition, if a prime awardee had a user account in the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), a new log-in will not be required.
Office of the Integrated Award Environment, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of the currently approved information collection requirement regarding FFATA Subaward and Executive Compensation Reporting Requirements.
Submit comments on or before August 18, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 3090-0292. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0292, FFATA Subaward and Executive Compensation Reporting Requirements”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0292, FFATA Subaward and Executive Compensation Reporting Requirements” on your attached document.
•
Dennis Harrison, Procurement Analyst, Office of the Integrated Award Environment, GSA, at telephone number 202-215-9767; or via email at
A notice was published in the
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended by section 6202(a) of Pub. L. 110-252), known as FFATA or the Transparency Act requires information disclosure of entities receiving Federal financial assistance through Federal awards such as Federal contracts, sub-contracts, grants and sub-grants, FFATA 2(a), (2), (i), (ii). Beginning October 1, 2010, the currently approved Paperwork Reduction Act submission directed compliance with the Transparency Act to report prime and first-tier sub-award data. Specifically, Federal agencies and prime awardees of grants were to ensure disclosure of executive compensation of both prime and subawardees and sub-award data pursuant to the Transparency Act. This information collection requires reporting of only the information enumerated under the Transparency Act.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting notice.
Notice of this meeting and these conference calls is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice provides the agenda and schedule for the October 24, 2017 meeting of the Green Building Advisory Committee (the Committee) and schedule for a series of conference calls, supplemented by Web meetings, for two task groups of the Committee. The meeting is open to the public and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The conference calls are open for the public to listen in. Interested individuals must register to attend as instructed below under
The
The
Mr. Ken Sandler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-219-1121 (
Contact Ken Sandler at
The Committee currently has two active task groups. The High Performance Building Adoption task group is pursuing the motion of a committee member to provide recommendations to “accelerate the adoption of high performance [Federal] buildings.” The Health and Wellness task group is pursuing the motion of a committee member to “develop guidelines to integrate health and wellness features into government facilities programs.”
The conference calls will allow the task groups to coordinate the development of consensus recommendations to the full Committee, which will, in turn, decide whether to proceed with formal advice to GSA based upon these recommendations.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 18, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, yo