Page Range | 34835-35055 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 34857 - Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, 2017, Pier 66, Elliot Bay; Seattle, Washington | |
82 FR 34858 - Security Zones; Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week Moving Vessels, 2017, Puget Sound, WA | |
82 FR 34857 - Safety Zone, Seafair Air Show Performance, 2017, Seattle, WA | |
82 FR 34979 - Notice of Reinstatement, Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLP | |
82 FR 34980 - TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition and Application for Reduction in Scope of Recognition | |
82 FR 34950 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
82 FR 34949 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 34855 - Safety Zone; Madison Light Up the Park Fireworks Display; Lake Erie, Madison Township, OH | |
82 FR 34978 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 | |
82 FR 34993 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 | |
82 FR 34848 - Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Assayed Quality Control Material for Clinical Microbiology Assays | |
82 FR 34932 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
82 FR 34957 - Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts | |
82 FR 34928 - Princeton University, et al. Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope | |
82 FR 34924 - Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments | |
82 FR 34927 - Yale University, et al.; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments | |
82 FR 34940 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Extension | |
82 FR 34939 - Agency Information Collection Extension With Changes | |
82 FR 35029 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
82 FR 35032 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
82 FR 35043 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
82 FR 35033 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
82 FR 34925 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
82 FR 35050 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
82 FR 35027 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
82 FR 35039 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
82 FR 35041 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Revision Request-Medical Qualification Requirements, OMB Control Number 2126-0006 | |
82 FR 35027 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Annual Report of Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers | |
82 FR 35045 - Crash Preventability Demonstration Program | |
82 FR 34937 - Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 34945 - Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technological Advisory Council | |
82 FR 35025 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
82 FR 34853 - Special Local Regulations; Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta, Allegheny River Mile 0.0 to 4.0 | |
82 FR 34945 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
82 FR 34944 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
82 FR 34911 - Rural Call Completion | |
82 FR 34930 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Crab Arbitration | |
82 FR 34852 - Electronic and Information Technology | |
82 FR 34956 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 34966 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Ship's Store Declaration | |
82 FR 34964 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Declaration of Unaccompanied Articles | |
82 FR 34965 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry of Articles for Exhibition | |
82 FR 34962 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special Bond | |
82 FR 34963 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Detention | |
82 FR 34882 - Inspection and Certification | |
82 FR 34962 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa | |
82 FR 34965 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 34928 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Region Permit Family of Forms | |
82 FR 34930 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska License Limitation Program (LLP) for Groundfish, Crab, and Scallops | |
82 FR 34929 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska American Fisheries Act Report | |
82 FR 34934 - Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 34923 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 34931 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish | |
82 FR 34961 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB; Control Number: 1625-0017 | |
82 FR 34960 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0082 | |
82 FR 34959 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0064 | |
82 FR 34950 - Supplemental Evidence and Data Request on Nonsurgical Treatments for Urinary Incontinence in Adult Women: A Systematic Review Update | |
82 FR 34954 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 35054 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
82 FR 34952 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 34854 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA | |
82 FR 34853 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA | |
82 FR 34981 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 35053 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
82 FR 35052 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
82 FR 35052 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System | |
82 FR 35021 - Data Collection Available for Public Comments | |
82 FR 34850 - Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty Catheter | |
82 FR 34975 - Agency Information Collection Activities: NPS Visitor Survey Card | |
82 FR 34958 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 34976 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
82 FR 34977 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
82 FR 35001 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 34974 - Notice of Application for Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Comment; California | |
82 FR 34979 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Joint Quarterly Narrative Progress Report | |
82 FR 35014 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rules 4702 and 4754 To Enhance the Nasdaq Closing Cross | |
82 FR 34997 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC's End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures | |
82 FR 35019 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Change in the Size of a Creation Unit Applicable to Shares of the PIMCO Low Duration Active Exchange-Traded Fund | |
82 FR 35002 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC ; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading | |
82 FR 34998 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading | |
82 FR 34994 - Information Collection: Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators | |
82 FR 35005 - Joint Industry Plan; Order of Summary Abrogation of Amendment No. 2 to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail by Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors' Exchange LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE MKT LLC and NYSE National, Inc. | |
82 FR 34933 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
82 FR 34875 - Ametoctradin; Pesticide Tolerance | |
82 FR 35022 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
82 FR 34958 - National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 34958 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 34991 - Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 | |
82 FR 34957 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 34994 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Ventilation System Changes | |
82 FR 34992 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria | |
82 FR 34990 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria | |
82 FR 34995 - Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 | |
82 FR 34884 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records | |
82 FR 34941 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses | |
82 FR 34971 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
82 FR 34968 - The President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council | |
82 FR 34967 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) | |
82 FR 34969 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection for Chemical-Terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI) | |
82 FR 34942 - Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of Findings for May 2017 | |
82 FR 34944 - 525 South Flower Street, Burbank, California; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative Settlement Agreement | |
82 FR 34870 - Fenpyroximate; Pesticide Tolerances | |
82 FR 34942 - Notice of Open Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) | |
82 FR 34877 - Tolpyralate; Pesticide Tolerances | |
82 FR 34946 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0092; -0149 & -0182) | |
82 FR 34909 - Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee-Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-New Task | |
82 FR 34894 - Direct Investment Surveys: BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States | |
82 FR 34982 - Closing the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund and Setting the Share Insurance Fund Normal Operating Level | |
82 FR 34835 - Freedom of Information Act and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures | |
82 FR 34974 - Indian Gaming; Approval of an Amendment to a Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact in the State of Washington | |
82 FR 34898 - Manufactured Home Regulations; Request for Recommended Changes | |
82 FR 34885 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 34888 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 34891 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 34844 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited | |
82 FR 34956 - Office of the Commissioner; Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority | |
82 FR 34861 - Expedited Approval of Alternative Test Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures | |
82 FR 34846 - Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Airplanes | |
82 FR 34838 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation | |
82 FR 34910 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Flame Attenuation Lines | |
82 FR 34858 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Flame Attenuation Lines | |
82 FR 34841 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
82 FR 34899 - Definition of “Waters of the United States”-Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules |
Economic Analysis Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Energy Information Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Final rule.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is updating its Freedom of Information Act regulation to conform to the FOIA Amendments Act of 2016 and updating its Sunshine Act regulation to clarify how public meetings will be announced and how changes to the meeting may occur after public announcement.
Ms. Lynn Parker Dupree, Deputy General Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, at 202-296-4682 or
The changes to the Freedom of Information Act are conforming amendments to reflect the requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The changes to the Sunshine Act regulation are conforming amendments that reflect changes to the agency's Sunshine Act procedures.
This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. The economic impact of these regulations should be minimal, therefore, further economic evaluation is not necessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires each agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Agencies must prepare a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives anytime a proposed or final rule imposes a new or additional enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector that causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year (defined in UMRA as a “federal mandate”). The Board determined that such a written statement is not required in connection with this final rule because it will not impose a federal mandate, as defined in UMRA.
The Board analyzed this final rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the Board determined that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Administrative practice and procedure, Public availability of information, Meetings.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 6 CFR parts 1001 and 1003 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 552, as amended; Executive Order 12600.
(a) You may request copies of records under this part by email to
(b) Your request shall reasonably describe the records sought with sufficient specificity, and when
(c) Although requests are considered either FOIA or Privacy Act requests, the Board processes requests for records in accordance with both laws so as to provide the greatest degree of lawful access while safeguarding an individual's personal privacy.
(d) Your request should specify your preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records you seek. We will accommodate your request if the record is readily available in that form or format. When you do not specify the form or format of the response, we will provide responsive records in the form or format most convenient to us.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) A statement notifying you of the assistance available from the Board's FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by OGIS.
(c) * * *
(1) Upon receipt of a FOIA request for a record within the Board's possession, the FOIA Officer should determine if the Board or another federal agency is best able to determine eligibility for disclosure under the FOIA. As to any such record, the FOIA Officer must proceed in one of the following ways:
(i)
(ii)
(d)
(a) You may appeal an adverse determination related to your FOIA request, or the Board's failure to respond to your FOIA request within the prescribed time limits, to the Chief FOIA Officer, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Requestors should check the Board's Web site at
(b) Your appeal must be in writing, sent to the address posted on the Board's Web site in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and it must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, within 90 calendar days after the date of the letter denying your request, in whole or in part. The appeal should clearly identify the agency determination that is being appealed and the assigned case request number. In case of the Board's failure to respond within the statutory time frame, you may submit an administrative appeal at any time until an agency response has been provided. For the most expeditious handling, your appeal letter and envelope, or subject line of the electronic transmission, should be marked “Freedom of Information Act appeal.”
(c) Your appeal letter should state facts and may cite legal or other authorities in support of your request.
(d) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the Chief FOIA Officer must take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
(e) The Chief FOIA Officer shall respond to all administrative appeals in writing and within the time frame stated in § 1001.8(d). If the decision affirms, in whole or in part, the FOIA Officer's determination, the letter shall contain a statement of the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemption(s) applied, and will inform you of the FOIA's provisions for court review. If the Chief FOIA Officer reverses or modifies the FOIA Officer's determination, in whole or in part, you will be notified in writing and your request will be reprocessed in accordance with that decision. The Board may work with Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to resolve disputes between FOIA requestors and the Board. A requester may also contact OGIS in the following ways: Via mail to OGIS, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS, College Park, MD 20740 (
(c) * * * Any information provided by a submitter under this subpart may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
(f) * * * The Board also must notify the requester when it notifies the submitter of its intent to disclose the requested information, and whenever a submitter files a lawsuit to prevent the disclosure of the information.
(a) We will charge fees that recoup the full allowable direct costs we incur in processing your FOIA request. Fees may be charged for search, review or duplication. As a matter of administrative discretion, the Board may release records without charge or at a reduced rate whenever the Board determines that the interest of the United States government would be served. We will use the most efficient and least costly methods to comply with your request. The Board may charge for search time even if no records are located or the records located are exempt from disclosure. If the Board fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits in which to respond to a request, it may not charge search fees, unless the circumstances outlined in paragraph (o) of this section are met.
(b) With regard to manual searches for records, we will charge the salary rate(s) (calculated as the basic rate of pay plus 16 percent of that basic rate to cover benefits) of the employee(s) performing the search.
(c) In calculating charges for computer searches for records, we will charge at the actual direct cost of providing the service, including the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as photocopiers and scanners, directly attributable to searching for records potentially responsive to your FOIA request and the portion of the salary of the operators/programmers performing the search.
(d) We may only charge requesters seeking documents for commercial use for time spent reviewing records to determine whether they are exempt from mandatory disclosure. Charges may be assessed only for the initial review—that is, the review undertaken the first time we analyze the applicability of a specific exemption to a particular record or portion of a record. Records or portions of records withheld in full under an exemption that is subsequently determined not to apply may be reviewed again to determine the applicability of other exemptions not previously considered. We may assess the costs for such subsequent review. No charge will be made for review at the administrative appeal stage of exemptions applied at the initial review stage.
(e) Records will be duplicated at a rate of $.10 per page, except that the Board may adjust this rate from time to time by rule published in the
(f) We will charge you the full costs of providing you with the following services:
(1) Certifying that records are true copies; or
(2) Sending records by special methods such as express mail.
(g) We may assess interest charges on an unpaid bill starting on the 31st calendar day following the day on which the billing was sent. Interest shall be at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing until payment is received by the Board.
(h) We will not charge a search fee for requests by educational institutions, non-commercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media. A search fee will be charged for a commercial use request.
(i) The Board will not charge duplication fees for requests by educational institutions, non-commercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media for a non-commercial use request if the agency fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits in which to respond to a request.
(j) Except for a commercial use request, we will not charge you for the first 100 pages of duplication and the first two hours of search.
(k) You may not file multiple requests, each seeking portions of a document or documents, solely for the purpose of avoiding payment of fees. When the Board reasonably believes that a requester, or a group of requesters acting in concert, has submitted requests that constitute a single request involving clearly related matters, we may aggregate those requests and charge accordingly.
(l) We may not require you to make payment before we begin work to satisfy the request or to continue work on a request, unless:
(1) We estimate or determine that the allowable charges that you may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250; or
(2) You have previously failed to pay a fee charged within 30 calendar days of the date of billing.
(m) In cases in which the Board requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If you do not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of the Board's fee determination, the request will be closed.
(n) Upon written request, we may waive or reduce fees that are otherwise chargeable under this part. If you request a waiver or reduction in fees, you must demonstrate that a waiver or reduction in fees is in the public interest because disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute significantly to the public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in your commercial interest. After processing, actual fees must exceed $25, for the Board to require payment of fees.
(o) If the Board has determined that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the Board may charge search fees, or, in the case of requesters described in paragraph (h) of this section, may charge duplication fees, if the following steps are taken. The Board must have provided timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA and the agency must have discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). If this exception is satisfied, the Board may charge all applicable fees incurred in the processing of the request.
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure
5 U.S.C. 552b.
(c) When a meeting has been called by the Chairman, the notice shall contain such agenda items as the Chairman designates. The notice shall be circulated to Members in advance of publication and Members, by majority vote, may add additional agenda items.
(d) When a meeting is called by a majority of Members, the notice shall contain such agenda items as have been approved by a majority of the Board.
(e) The Executive Director will ensure that the final agenda for the meeting conforms to the notice published in the
(f) If public notice is provided by means other than publication in the
(a) The time, place, and agenda items of a meeting following the public announcement described in § 1003.4, or the determination of the Board to open or close a meeting, or a portion thereof, to the public may be changed following public announcement only if:
(1) A majority of all members determine by recorded vote that Board business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible; and
(2) The Board publicly announces such change and the vote of each member thereon at the earliest practicable time.
(b) Changes to the time, place and agenda items of a meeting called by the Chairman pursuant to § 1003.4(c) must be made with the concurrence of the Chairman, except that when Members have, by majority vote, added additional agenda items, the addition of those agenda items does not require the Chairman's concurrence.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters. This AD requires an inspection and reduces the retirement lives of certain landing gear components. This AD is prompted by a revised analysis of the fatigue life of the landing gear. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective August 11, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of August 11, 2017.
We must receive comments on this AD by September 25, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email:
Dorie Resnik, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7693; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
We are adopting a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters. This AD is prompted by Sikorsky's updated fatigue analysis of the nose and main landing gear as part of a supplier transition project. The updated fatigue
Accordingly, this AD requires inspecting and reducing the life limits of these landing gear components. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect and prevent cracks or failure of any landing gear component, which could result in damage and loss of control of the helicopter.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design.
We reviewed Ultrasonic Inspection Technique No. UT 5077, Revision 0, dated July 25, 2014 (UT 5077). UT 5077 contains the inspection method, equipment and materials, calibration, and inspection procedure for performing an ultrasonic inspection of nose gear actuator fitting P/N 92209-01101-101.
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 also reviewed Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 92-32-004, Basic Issue, dated January 30, 2015 (ASB). The ASB describes procedures for conducting a visual inspection of the NLG airframe fitting assembly and an ultrasonic inspection by following the procedures in UT 5077.
This AD requires removing the following components from service:
• Any MLG wheel axle P/N 2392-2334-001 that has 22,300 or more landing cycles.
• Any MLG or NLG threaded hinge pin P/N 2392-2311-003 that has 26,100 or more landing cycles.
• Any NLG cylinder P/N 2392-4006-005 that has 26,300 or more landing cycles.
• Any NLG hinge pin P/N 2392-4312-003 that has 26,700 or more landing cycles.
• Any landing gear actuator rod end P/N 2392-0876-901 that has 41,700 or more landing cycles.
For helicopters that have 31,600 or more landing cycles and an NLG airframe fitting assembly P/N 92209-01101-041 installed, this AD also requires:
• Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspecting each bushing and all visible surfaces of mating lug fittings adjacent to each bushing for fretting, corrosion, wear, and scratches.
• Replacing the NLG airframe fitting assembly before further flight if there is fretting, corrosion, wear, or a scratch more than 0.0005 inch deep.
• Ultrasonic inspecting the NLG actuator fitting and replacing the NLG actuator fitting before further flight if there are any anomalies.
The ASB requires a repetitive inspection of the NLG airframe fitting assemblies P/N 92209-01101-041 every 1,986 landing cycles; this AD does not.
We consider this AD to be an interim action. We are currently considering requiring a repetitive inspection of the NLG airframe fitting assemblies P/N 92209-01101-041 that would occur every 1,986 landing cycles. However, the planned compliance time for the inspections would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the repetitive inspections.
We estimate that this AD will affect 80 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour:
• Replacing a wheel axle P/N 2392-2334-001 will require 2 work-hours and required parts cost $22,000, for a cost per helicopter of $22,170.
• Replacing a MLG or NLG threaded hinge pin P/N 2392-2311-003 will require 1 work-hour and required parts cost $3,800, for a cost per helicopter of $3,885.
• Replacing a NLG cylinder P/N 2392-4006-005 will require 1 work-hour and required parts cost $27,200, for a cost per helicopter of $27,285.
• Replacing a NLG hinge pin P/N 2392-4312-003 will require 1 work-hour and required parts cost $4,400, for a cost per helicopter of $4,485.
• Replacing a landing gear actuator rod end P/N 2392-0876-901 will require 1 work-hour and required parts cost $900, for a cost per helicopter of $985.
• Inspecting the NLG airframe fitting assembly P/N 92209-01101-041 will require 8 work-hours, and required parts cost is minimal, for a cost of $680 per helicopter and $54,400 for the U.S. fleet.
• If required, replacing a NLG actuator fitting P/N 92209-01101-101 would require 70 work-hours, and required parts cost $10,000, for a cost per helicopter of $15,950.
Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because replacing the landing gear components affected by the life-limit reductions required by this AD must be accomplished before further flight.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 applies to Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue failure of the landing gear. This condition could result in failure of the landing gear and subsequent damage to and loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective August 11, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, remove from service any part that has accumulated the number of landing cycles listed in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. Thereafter, remove from service any part before accumulating the number of landing cycles listed in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. For purposes of this AD, a landing cycle is counted anytime the helicopter lifts off into the air and then lands again regardless of the duration of the landing and regardless of whether the engine is shut down. If the number of landing cycles in unknown, multiply the number of hours time-in-service by 4.5 to determine the number of landing cycles.
(2) For helicopters with 31,600 or more landing cycles and an NLG airframe fitting assembly P/N 92209-01101-041 installed, before further flight:
(i) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect each bushing (P/N 92209-01101-102 and P/N 92209-01101-103) and all visible surfaces of mating lug fittings adjacent to each bushing for fretting, corrosion, wear, and scratches. If there is fretting, corrosion, wear, or a scratch more than 0.0005 inch deep, replace the NLG airframe fitting assembly before further flight.
(ii) Ultrasonic inspect each NLG actuator fitting P/N 92209-01101-101 in accordance with Sikorsky Ultrasonic Inspection Technique No. UT 5077, Revision 0, dated July 25, 2014 (UT 5077), except you are not required to report to or contact Sikorsky. If there are any anomalies or suspect indications, replace the NLG actuator fitting before further flight.
A copy of UT 5077 is attached to Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 92-32-004, Basic Issue, dated January 30, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Dorie Resnik, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7693; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 92-32-004, Basic Issue, dated January 30, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email:
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3200 Main Landing Gear and 3220 Nose Landing Gear.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference 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) Ultrasonic Inspection Technique No. UT 5077, Revision 0, dated July 25, 2014.
Ultrasonic Inspection Technique No. UT 5077, Revision 0, dated July 25, 2014, is an attachment to Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 92-32-004, Basic Issue, dated
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Sikorsky service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(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 certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of aileron and rudder control cables that may have tensions that are beyond allowable limits. This AD requires a revision to the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certification maintenance requirement tasks that introduce functional tests of the control cable tension. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 31, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 31, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-06R1, dated July 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Recent in-service inspections have shown that aileron and rudder control cables may have tensions beyond allowable limits. Review of the technical documentation found that there are no maintenance tasks to detect and rectify out-of-tolerance tensions on these cables. Out of tolerance cables in combinations with certain system failures and environmental conditions could result in the degraded aircraft controllability.
* * * [This Canadian] AD was issued to mandate a revision to the approved maintenance schedule [maintenance or inspection program, as applicable] to introduce cable tension check [
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
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.
Bombardier, Inc., and KACALP Flight Operations requested that paragraph (g)
We do not agree to delay issuance of this AD to reference the latest TLMC general revision. Paragraph (g) of this AD states that when the applicable TR has been included in a general revision of the TLMC, the general revision may be inserted in the maintenance or inspection program and the applicable TR may be removed. The TR for each affected Bombardier, Inc. airplane model TLMC is available on the Internet at
Bombardier, Inc., and KACALP Flight Operations requested that we revise paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD to remove the later alternative compliance time “within 30 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness.” The commenters noted that some airplanes have already exceeded, or will soon exceed, this threshold and would be immediately grounded by the proposed AD.
We agree with the request. We have revised the compliance time in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD to within 15 months after the effective date of this AD. We have determined that this change will not affect flight safety or the calculated risk assessment, and will not impose any additional burden on any operator.
Bombardier, Inc., requested that paragraph (h)(3) of this AD be removed. Bombardier, Inc., noted that the Canadian AD CF-2016-06R1, dated July 25, 2016, did not give any actions for the aircraft in paragraph (h) of this AD. Bombardier, Inc. indicated that for these aircraft, inserting the certification maintenance requirements (CMR) task into the scheduled maintenance or inspection program, as described in paragraph (g) of this AD, and following the specified task interval in the TLMC is sufficient.
We do not agree to remove paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Paragraph (h) of this AD provides the compliance times for the initial actions that are incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. These compliance times are necessary to provide a starting point for the inspections. The FAA finds it necessary to specify initial compliance times for maintenance actions in ADs because this information is not normally included in the design approval holder's (DAH) service information. The airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD are also identified in paragraph (g) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
KACALP Flight Operations requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD to include the inspection intervals and procedural instructions in the referenced TR of the Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes' CMR. KACALP Flight Operations then suggested that these instructions in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD be referenced in the TLMC and AMM as a way to ensure compliance with each subsequent revision to the TLMC and AMM. KACALP Flight Operations stated that owner/operators are not obligated by regulation to own a technical subscription from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), but that most recipients of a Bombardier Technical Library own a digital subscription. Bombardier, Inc. automatically removes the TRs and updates the standard issue to the TLMC and AMM without immediate notice. Bombardier stated that nothing would trigger either the OEM or the subscriber to look for changes to an interval or procedure; therefore, these owner/operators would not know if there is a change to an interval or procedure. KACALP Flight Operations suggested that the FAA could mandate a maintenance record requirement specifically for aircraft inspection programs.
We find that clarification is necessary. When possible, we rely on the DAH to provide accomplishment instructions in their service information; referencing this information provides for brevity in ADs and minimizes errors in ADs. Owners/operators are responsible for compliance with ADs, as well as the proper maintenance and safe operation of their airplanes, by adhering to the actions specified in the TLMC and AMM. Therefore, we have not changed paragraph (i) of this AD.
We also do not agree to mandate a maintenance record requirement specifically for aircraft inspection programs. At this time, the FAA does not require manufacturers to reference ADs within their service information. 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 with the changes described previously and 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 also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed the following Bombardier, Inc. service information:
• TR 5-2-10, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
• TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
• TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck—Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
• TR 5-2-16, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
• TR 5-2-47, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
The service information identifies airworthiness limitation tasks for functional tests of the cable tension of the aileron and rudder control cables. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
We estimate that this AD affects 60 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 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 31, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9002 through 9743 inclusive, and 9998.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of aileron and rudder control cables that may have tensions that are beyond allowable limits. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct out-of-tolerance tension in the control cables, which, with certain system failures and environmental conditions, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certification maintenance requirement (CMR) tasks 27-11-35-101, 27-11-35-102, and 27-21-27-101 (for functional tests of the control cable tension), as specified in the applicable service information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. When the applicable temporary revision (TR) has been included in general revisions of the TLMC, the general revisions may be inserted in the maintenance or inspection program, and the applicable TR may be removed, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR.
(1) TR 5-2-10, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
(2) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
(3) TR 5-2-47, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
(4) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck—Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
(5) TR 5-2-16, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
The TRs identified in paragraph (g) of this AD have been incorporated into their respective airplane model AMM as follows:
The initial compliance times for doing the CMR tasks identified in paragraph (g) of this AD are at the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 9002 through 9694 inclusive, and 9998: Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes having S/Ns 9695 through 9743 inclusive that have had aileron and/or
(i) Bombardier GL 700 AMM, Revision 67, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
(ii) Bombardier GL XRS AMM, Revision 45, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
(iii) Bombardier GL 6000 AMM, Revision 15, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
(iv) Bombardier GL 5000 AMM, Revision 48, August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
(v) Bombardier GL 5000 GVFD AMM, Revision 15, August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
(3) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Within 30 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-06 R1, dated July 25, 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 Cesar A. Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531; email:
(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) Temporary Revision (TR) 5-2-10, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
(ii) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
(iii) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck—Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
(iv) TR 5-2-16, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
(v) TR 5-2-47, dated November 24, 2015, to Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; 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 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 429 helicopters. This AD requires reducing the life limit of certain landing gear parts and is prompted by a stress analysis. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 31, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On March 7, 2017, at 82 FR 12753, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF-2014-28, dated August 19, 2014, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 429 helicopters, serial numbers 57001 and subsequent. Transport Canada advises that Bell has reduced the life limits of several landing gear components and accordingly revised the airworthiness limitations schedule for Model 429 helicopters. The reduced life limits resulted from a stress analysis completed by Bell after the introduction of the Model 429 helicopter to service. While the reduced life limits were originally published in Revision 9 of the Bell Model 429 maintenance manual, Transport Canada AD No. CF-2014-28 requires inserting the new airworthiness limitations schedule in Revision 10 of the Bell Model 429 maintenance manual. Transport Canada states that failure to replace those components prior to the established airworthiness life could result in an unsafe condition.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by Transport Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
We reviewed Bell Model 429 Maintenance Manual BHT-429-MM-1, Chapter 4, Airworthiness Limitations Schedule, Revision 9, dated January 6, 2012, which specifies airworthiness life limits and inspection intervals for parts installed on Model 429 helicopters. Revision 9 reduced the life limits for the skid tube assemblies, forward crosstube assembly, and aft crosstube assembly.
We estimate that this AD affects 71 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Calculating the life limit will take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $1,491 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing a skid tube assembly will take about 2 work-hours and parts will cost about $7,050 for an estimated replacement cost of $7,220. Replacing a forward cross tube assembly will take about 1.5 work-hours and parts will cost about $5,880 for an estimated replacement cost of $6,008. Replacing an aft tube assembly will take about 1.5 work-hours and parts will cost $6,710 for an estimated replacement cost of $6,838.
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 helicopters 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a landing gear part remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. This condition could result in failure of a landing gear part, failure of a landing gear skid, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter during takeoff or landing.
This AD becomes effective August 31, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Before further flight, determine the accumulated retirement index number (RIN) for each part and remove it from service if it has reached or exceeded its life limit as follows. Thereafter, remove each part from service on or before reaching its life limit. For purposes of this AD, a run-on landing is defined as a landing with forward ground travel of the helicopter greater than 3 feet (0.91 m) with weight on skids.
(1) For Skid Tube Assembly part number (P/N) 429-700-101, 429-700-102, and 429-030-586-107: 16,000 RIN. Count 1 RIN for each landing; count 81 RIN for each run-on landing; and count 117 RIN for each autorotation landing.
(2) For Forward Crosstube Assembly P/N 429-712-101: 10,000 RIN. Count 1 RIN for each landing; count 50 RIN for each run-on landing; and count 118 RIN for each autorotation landing.
(3) Aft Crosstube Assembly P/N 429-723-108: 30,000 RIN. Count 1 RIN for each landing; count 32 RIN for each run-on landing; and count 186 RIN for each autorotation landing.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Bell 429 Maintenance Manual BHT-429-MM-1, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Revision 9, dated January 6, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2014-28, dated August 19, 2014. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3200, Landing Gear System.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200 and 3101, and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes that would supersede AD 97-10-05. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the main landing gear (MLG) fitting at the pintle to cylinder interface, which could cause failure of the MLG during takeoff and landing. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 31, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 31, 2017.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For the British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Business Support Team—Technical Publications, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200 and 3101, and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
Cracks were found during early fatigue testing and in service on the main landing gear (MLG) main fitting at the pintle to cylinder interface.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to structural failure of
To address this unsafe condition, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd published several Service Bulletins (SB) which, in 1996, were consolidated into a single SB 32-JA960142 to provide instructions for inspection. CAA UK issued AD 005-03-96 accordingly to require repetitive inspections of the MLG.
Recently, a crack was found which was below the critical crack length, but unusually large compared to other similar cracks previously found in service. Further investigation into the subject determined that the existing inspection interval remains valid, but also showed that the assumed detectable defect size of 1.27 mm (0.05 in) crack cannot be guaranteed using the current accomplishment instructions for high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or fluorescent dye penetrant (FDP) inspection.
Consequently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32-JA960142 Revision 04, which provides improved procedures for HFEC and FDP inspection to ensure the detection of cracks of 1.27 mm (0.05 in).
For the reason described above, the [EASA] AD retains the requirements of CAA UK AD 005-03-96, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of repetitive inspections in accordance with the improved procedures.
The MCAI can be found 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 the 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 British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision No. 4, October 21, 2016, which describes procedures for doing non-destructive testing for cracks in the MLG and corrective actions if cracks found exceed a certain crack length. (The appendix to the service bulletin specifically describes fluorescent liquid penetrant testing.) We also reviewed Heroux Devtek Service Bulletin 32-56, Revision 4, dated August 16, 2016, which describes procedures for doing a non-destructive testing eddy current inspection for cracks in the MLG. 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 will affect 26 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $13,260, or $510 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost of $5,085 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
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 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 31, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 97-10-05; Amendment 39-10017 (62 FR 28318; May 23, 1997) (“AD 97-10-05”).
This AD applies to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200 and 3101, and
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the main landing gear (MLG) fitting at the pintle to cylinder interface, which could cause failure of the MLG during takeoff and landing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the main landing gear (MLG), which could lead to structural failure of the MLG and could result in loss of control during takeoffs and landings.
Unless already done, do the following actions listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD:
(1) Within the compliance times listed in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD, as applicable, inspect the MLG for cracks following Appendix 1 of British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision No. 4, October 21, 2016; or Heroux Devtek Service Bulletin 32-56, Revision 4, dated August 16, 2016, as specified in British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision No. 4, October 21, 2016.
(i) For airplanes that have been inspected following AD 97-10-05: Do the initial inspection within 1,200 flight cycles (FC) after the last inspection required by AD 97-10-05 and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 FC.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected following AD 97-10-05: Do the initial inspection within 8,000 FC after installation of the MLG or within the next 100 FC after August 31, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 FC.
(2) If any cracks are found during any of the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the MLG with an airworthy part following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision No. 4, October 21, 2016.
(3) The compliance times in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD are presented in FC (landings). If the total FC have not been kept, multiply the total number of airplane hours time-in-service (TIS) by 0.75 to calculate the FC. For the purposes of this AD:
(i) 100 hours TIS × .75 = 75 FC; and
(ii) 1,000 hours TIS × .75 = 750 FC.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017-0053, dated March 24, 2017. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(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) British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision No. 4, October 21, 2016.
(ii) Heroux Devtek Service Bulletin 32-56, Revision 4, dated August 16, 2016.
(3) For British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 service information related to this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Business Support Team-Technical Publications, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
(4) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(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:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is classifying the assayed quality control material for clinical microbiology assays into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the assayed quality control material for clinical microbiology assays' classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective July 27, 2017. The classification was applicable on March 28, 2016.
Ryan Lubert, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4545, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6357,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, also known as De Novo classification, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.
On December 18, 2015, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the Amplichek II under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on March 28, 2016, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 866.3920.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for an assayed quality control material for clinical microbiology assays will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. A De Novo classification decreases regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device type as class I or II via the De Novo pathway, other manufacturers do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market the same type of device, unless the device has a new intended use or technological characteristics that raise different questions of safety or effectiveness. Instead, manufacturers can use the less burdensome pathway of 510(k), when necessary, to market their device, and the device that was the subject of the original De Novo classification can serve as a predicate device for additional 510(k)s from other manufacturers.
The device is assigned the generic name assayed quality control material for clinical microbiology assays, and it is identified as a device indicated for use in a test system to estimate test precision or to detect systematic analytical deviations that may arise from reagent or analytical instrument variation. This type of device consists of single or multiple microbiological analytes intended for use with either qualitative or quantitative assays.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1:
FDA believes that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. This device type is not exempt from premarket notification
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed device description documentation and information concerning the composition of the quality control material, including, as appropriate:
(i) Analyte concentration;
(ii) Expected values;
(iii) Analyte source;
(iv) Base matrix;
(v) Added components;
(vi) Safety and handling information; and
(vii) Detailed instructions for use.
(2) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed documentation, including line data as well as detailed study protocols and a statistical analysis plan used to establish performance, including:
(i) Description of the process for value assignment and validation.
(ii) Description of the protocol(s) used to establish stability.
(iii) Line data establishing precision/reproducibility.
(iv) Where applicable, assessment of matrix effects and any significant differences between the quality control material and typical patient samples in terms of conditions known to cause analytical error or affect assay performance.
(v) Where applicable, identify or define traceability or relationship to a domestic or international standard reference material and/or method.
(vi) Where applicable, detailed documentation related to studies for surrogate controls.
(3) Premarket notification submissions must include an adequate mitigation (
(4) Your 21 CFR 809.10 compliant labeling must include the following:
(i) The intended use of your 21 CFR 809.10(a)(2) and (b)(2) compliant labeling must include the following:
(A) Assayed control material analyte(s);
(B) Whether the material is intended for quantitative or qualitative assays;
(C) Stating if the material is a surrogate control; and
(D) The system(s), instrument(s), or test(s) for which the quality control material is intended.
(ii) The intended use in your 21 CFR 809.10(a)(2) and (b)(2) compliant labeling must include the following statement: “This product is not intended to replace manufacturer controls provided with the device.”
(iii) A limiting statement that reads “Quality control materials should be used in accordance with local, state, federal regulations, and accreditation requirements.”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is classifying the balloon aortic valvuloplasty catheter into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the balloon aortic valvuloplasty catheter's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective July 27, 2017. The classification was applicable on June 11, 2012.
Nicole Ibrahim, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1232, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, 301-796-5171,
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, also known as De Novo classification, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on December 3, 2008, classifying the NuCLEUS-X Percutaneous Transluminal Valvuloplasty Catheter into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II.
On December 23, 2008, NuMED, Inc. submitted a request for classification of the NuCLEUS-X Percutaneous Transluminal Valvuloplasty Catheter under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on June 11, 2012, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.1255.
Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a balloon aortic valvuloplasty catheter will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. A De Novo classification decreases regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device type as class I or II via the De Novo pathway, other manufacturers do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market the same type of device, unless the device has a new intended use or technological characteristics that raise different questions of safety or effectiveness. Instead, manufacturers can use the less burdensome pathway of 510(k), when necessary, to market their device, and the device that was the subject of the original De Novo classification can serve as a predicate device for additional 510(k)s from other manufacturers.
The device is assigned the generic name balloon aortic valvuloplasty catheter, and it is identified as a catheter with a balloon at the distal end of the shaft that is intended to treat stenosis in the aortic valve when the balloon is expanded.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1:
FDA believes that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Balloon aortic valvuloplasty catheters are not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to direct the use of the device. As such, the device is a prescription device and must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see 21 CFR 801.109,
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification (510(k)), prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the balloon aortic valvuloplasty catheter they intend to market.
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(2) Sterility and shelf life testing must demonstrate the sterility of patient-contacting components and the shelf life of these components.
(3) Non-clinical performance evaluation must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use, including device delivery, inflation, deflation, and removal.
(4) In vivo evaluation of the device must demonstrate device performance, including the ability of the device to treat aortic stenosis.
(5) Labeling must include a detailed summary of the device-related and procedure-related complications pertinent to the use of the device.
Department of State.
Final rule.
This rule provides a correction to a hyperlink included in the Section 508 implementing rule for the Department of State (the Department). The hyperlink takes the reader to a form that can be used by an employee or a member of the public to report accessibility issues to the Department, regarding its electronic and information technology.
This rule is effective on August 28, 2017.
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser, 202-647-2318,
Section 508 requires that when Federal departments and agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology, they shall ensure that the electronic and information technology is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Department's implementing regulations, in 22 CFR part 147, were published in 2016. Due to a re-configuration of Web site assets within the Department, the hyperlink included in § 147.7(c) for the DS-4282 (Discrimination Complaint Form), is no longer valid. This rulemaking corrects the link.
The Department is preparing a more comprehensive update to Part 147, which will align its rule with the final rule published by the Access Board (
The Department of State is publishing this rulemaking as a final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This rulemaking is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. The effective date of the rule is 30 days after publication, as provided in the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Department further finds that this is not a major rule; is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; will not have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175; and will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule is not an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866, and the Department certifies that the benefits of this rulemaking outweigh any costs, which are minimal for the public. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as “non-significant”, as defined by Executive Order 12866. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” See OMB Memorandum M-17-21, “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771” of April 5, 2017.
The Department of State has reviewed this rule in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. This rule will not have substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationships 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 Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The information collection referred to in this rulemaking has been approved by OMB. (OMB Control No. 1405-0220).
Civil rights, Communications equipment, Computer technology, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 147 is amended as follows:
22 U.S.C. 2651a; 29 U.S.C. 794, 794d; 36 CFR part 1194.
Coast Guard, DHS
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation during the Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta on the Allegheny River miles 0.0 to 4.0, for all navigable waters of the river. This regulation is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the regulated area is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 Sector Ohio Valley, No. 36 will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., each day from October 7, 2017, through October 8, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the annual Three Rivers Rowing Association/Head of the Ohio Regatta in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 Sector Ohio Valley, No. 36 from 6 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. each day from October 7, 2017 through October 8, 2017. Entry into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Interstate 5 (I-5) Bridges across the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the presence of participants in the Hands Across the Bridge Project. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.
This deviation is effective from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on September 4, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0697 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Oregon Department of Transportation (bridge owner) requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the I-5 Bridges, mile 106.5, across the Columbia River between Vancouver, WA, and Portland, OR, to facilitate safe passage of participants in the Hands Across the Bridge Project. The I-5 Bridges provides three designated navigation channels with vertical clearances ranging from 39 to 72 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while the lift spans are in the closed-to-navigation position. The normal operating schedule for the I-5 Bridges is codified at 33 CFR 117.869. The subject bridges need not open to marine vessels during the deviation period from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on September 4, 2017. The bridge shall operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.869 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from large commercial ships, tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft.
Vessels able to pass under the bridges in the closed-to-navigation positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to allow work crews to replace bridge decking. This deviation allows a single leaf opening with a one hour advance notice during the day, and remains in the closed-to-navigation position during evening hours.
This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on August 11, 2017 to 5 a.m. on August 21, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0700] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, at mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate work crews to conduct timely bridge deck repairs. The Montlake Bridge in the closed-to-navigation position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel, and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60 feet of the bridge; vertical clearance references to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. When half the span is open, single leaf, 46 feet of vertical clearance will be reduced throughout the center 30 feet of the bridge. To facilitate this construction event, single leaf operation will provide 75 feet of horizontal clearance.
The normal operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1051(e). The deviation period and span operation is described in the table below:
Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergency vessels in route to a call when an hour notice is given to the bridge operator, and a single leaf opening will be provided. The Lake Washington Ship Canal has no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Lake Erie, Madison Township, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Madison Light Up the Park fireworks display on September 03, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:15 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on September 3, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 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.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with vessels in the vicinity of firework displays on September 03, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels and spectators within a 210 foot radius of the launch point of the fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is happening.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on September 03, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 210 feet of the launch point of the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 210 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the Fleet Week Maritime Festival's Pier 66 Safety Zone in Elliott Bay, WA 30 minutes prior to the beginning, during, and 30 minutes following the conclusion of the parade of ships. This action is necessary to promote safety on navigable waters. During the enforcement period, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1330 will be subject to enforcement from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on August 2, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6051, email
The safety zone for the Fleet Week Maritime Festival in 33 CFR 165.1330 will be subject to enforcement from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on August 2, 2017; however, within this time frame it will only be enforced 30 minutes prior to the beginning, during, and 30 minutes following the conclusion of the parade of ships. The COTP may issue a general permission to enter the zone during some of this time period if he determines the zone need not be enforced for a certain period of time because the parade of ships starts late or ends early. If the COTP issues a general permission to enter, the public would be notified via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative, 30 minutes prior to the beginning, during, and 30 minutes following the conclusion of the Parade of Ships. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies as needed.
In order to transit through this safety zone, you must be granted authorization by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative. To seek authorization to enter the zone, contact either the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16, or Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at (206) 217-6002. Vessel operators granted permission to enter this safety zone will be escorted by the on-scene patrol until no longer within the safety zone.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1330 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the annual Seafair Air Show Performance safety zone on Lake Washington, Seattle, WA daily, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., from August 3, 2017, through August 6, 2017. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of the public from inherent dangers associated with these annual aerial displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter or transit this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1319 will be enforced daily, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., from August 3, 2017, through August 6, 2017.
If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6051, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Seafair Air Show Performance safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 daily, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., from August 3, 2016, through August 6, 2017 unless canceled sooner by the Captain of the Port.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1319, the following area is designated as a safety zone: All waters of Lake Washington, Washington State, south of the Interstate 90 bridge, west of Mercer Island, and north of Seward Park. The specific boundaries of the safety zone are listed in 33 CFR 165.1319(b).
In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone except for support vessels and support personnel, vessels registered with the event organizer, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or Designated Representatives. Vessels and persons granted authorization to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions made by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1319 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week Moving Vessels security zones from 10 a.m. on Aug 1, 2017, through 6 p.m. on August 7, 2017. These security zones are necessary to help ensure the security of the vessels from sabotage or other subversive acts during Seafair Fleet Week Parade of Ships. The designated participating vessels are: HMCS YELLOWKNIFE (MM 706), HMCS EDMONTON (MM 703), and USCGC MELLON (WHEC 717). During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zones without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP), Puget Sound or her designated representative. The COTP has granted general permission for vessels to enter the outer 400 yards of the security zones as long as those vessels within the outer 400 yards of the security zones operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course unless required to maintain speed by the navigation rules.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1333 will be enforced from 10 a.m. on August 1, 2017, through 6 p.m. on August 7, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Zachary Spence, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6051, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the security zones for Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week Moving Vessels in 33 CFR 165.1333 from 10 a.m. on August 1, 2017, through 6 p.m. on August 7, 2017.
In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart D, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zones without the permission of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or her designated representative. For the purposes of this rule, the following areas are security zones: All navigable waters within 500 yards of HMCS YELLOWKNIFE (MM 706), HMCS EDMONTON (MM 703), and USCGC MELLON (WHEC 717) while each such vessel is in the Sector Puget Sound COTP Zone.
The COTP has granted general permission for vessels to enter the outer 400 yards of the security zones as long as those vessels within the outer 400 yards of the security zones operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain course unless required to maintain speed by the navigation rules. The COTP may be assisted by other federal, state or local agencies with the enforcement of the security zones.
All vessel operators who desire to enter the inner 100 yards of the security zones or transit the outer 400 yards at greater than minimum speed necessary to maintain course must obtain permission from the COTP or her designated representative by contacting the on-scene patrol craft on VHF 13 or Ch 16. Requests must include the reason why movement within this area is necessary. Vessel operators granted permission to enter the security zones will be escorted by the on-scene patrol craft until they are outside of the security zones.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1333 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advanced notification of the security zones via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts on the day of the event. If the COTP determines that the security zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter all portions of the regulated areas.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for flame attenuation (FA) lines in the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry. This direct final rule provides affected sources a 1-year extension to comply with the emission limits for FA lines. The EPA can provide sources up to 3 years to comply with emission limits in the Clean Air Act (CAA) standards. FA lines initially were given 2 years to comply with the emission limits. This action will extend the compliance date to the maximum of 3 years while we conduct our review. This compliance date extension will enable the EPA to conduct a review of the emission limits for FA lines in light of recently submitted corrected source emissions data.
This rule is effective on October 25, 2017, without further notice, unless the EPA receives significant adverse comment by August 28, 2017, or if a public hearing is requested, by August 3, 2017.
If the EPA receives significant adverse comment, or if a public hearing is requested, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042, at
To request a hearing, to register to speak at a hearing, or to inquire if a hearing will be held, please contact Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or by email at
Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address:
The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and do not anticipate significant adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
If the EPA receives significant adverse comment on all or a distinct portion of this direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this direct final rule include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this direct final rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1380. If you have questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through
Under the rule published in 2015 (80 FR 45280, July 29, 2015), the owner or operator of an FA line subject to the emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, must demonstrate compliance with the limits by July 31, 2017. This compliance date is 2 years after promulgation of the amended limits. We note that CAA section 112 allows sources up to 3 years to comply with emission standards. With this action, we are extending the compliance date for certain emission limitations by another year so the EPA can review the emission limitations to address two recent issues that have come to our attention.
First, in March 2017, Johns-Manville, a company that manufactures wool fiberglass using the FA process, notified the EPA that the data they collected in 2011 for the Wool Fiberglass Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) contained errors in the methodology and, ultimately, the final stack test emissions results submitted to the EPA. These data were used by the EPA in the development of the current emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emitted from the bonding and curing processes on FA lines. Johns-Manville representatives stated that they did not realize at the time of the 2011 test submittal that the methodology was in error, and it went undiscovered until
Second, Johns-Manville informed the EPA that some of their FA lines manufacture a product by extruding extremely thin glass fibers at a very low pull rate through a fiber forming process. This process is also subject to the FA line limits, which are expressed in pounds of pollutant per ton of glass pulled. Johns-Manville asked the EPA to consider alternative emission limits for such processes which would be equivalent to the pounds per ton limits, but would be expressed as a concentration (pounds of pollutant per dry standard cubic foot) or as hourly production (pounds of pollutant per hour).
The EPA is reviewing the new and corrected data submitted by Johns-Manville, and will determine at a later date what, if any, actions are appropriate. We plan to propose any actions we believe are appropriate along with the technology review proposed rulemaking for the rotary spin lines, which is expected to be promulgated in December 2017. During the extension to the compliance date, the EPA will review the corrected emission test data as well as the new test data collected on low-pull FA lines. Only the compliance date for FA lines is affected by this action, and no changes to the emission limits, operating limits, monitoring requirements, or other requirements are being made at this time.
In any subsequent final rule, if necessary, the EPA intends to examine whether there is “good cause,” under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to designate the publication date of the final rule (based on our parallel proposal) as the effective date for implementation of the final rule.
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 any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0114. This action does not change the information collection requirements.
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. This action does not create any new requirements or burdens and no costs are associated with this direct final action.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate 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. There are no wool fiberglass facilities located on tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying 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 concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This action announces the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) approval of alternative testing methods for use in measuring the levels of contaminants in drinking water and determining compliance with national primary drinking water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to approve the use of alternative testing methods through publication in the
This action is effective July 27, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0284. All documents in the docket are listed on the
The Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800) 426-4791 or Glynda Smith, Technical Support Center, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-7652; email address:
Public water systems are the regulated entities required to measure contaminants in drinking water samples. In addition, EPA Regions as well as states and tribal governments with authority to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) may measure contaminants in water samples. When EPA sets a monitoring requirement in its national primary drinking water regulations for a given contaminant, the agency also establishes (in the regulations) standardized test procedures for analysis of the contaminant. This action makes alternative testing methods available for particular drinking water contaminants beyond the testing methods currently established in the regulations. EPA is providing public water systems, required to test water samples, with a choice of using either a test procedure already established in the existing regulations or an alternative testing method that has been approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. Categories and entities that may ultimately be affected by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by
In this action, EPA is approving 17 analytical methods for determining contaminant concentrations in drinking water samples collected under SDWA. Regulated parties required to sample and monitor may use either the testing methods already established in existing regulations or the alternative testing methods being approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. The new methods are listed along with other methods similarly approved through previous expedited actions in 40 CFR part 141, appendix A to subpart C and on EPA's drinking water methods Web site at
When EPA determines that an alternative analytical method is “equally effective” (
This action does not add regulatory language, but does, for informational purposes, update an appendix to the regulations at 40 CFR part 141 that lists all methods approved under section 1401(1) of SDWA. Accordingly, while this action is not a rule, it is updating CFR text and therefore is being published in the “Final Rules” section of the
EPA is approving 17 methods that are equally effective relative to methods previously promulgated in the regulations. By means of this action, these 17 methods are added to appendix A to subpart C of 40 CFR part 141.
1. EPA Method 150.3, Determination of pH in Drinking Water (USEPA 2017). EPA Method 150.3 was developed in response to comments from state regulators and utility operators that EPA Methods 150.1 (USEPA 1983a) and 150.2 (USEPA 1983b), currently approved at 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1) for standalone and continuous online pH monitoring, respectively, do not address the current pH technologies available for pH monitoring in drinking water utilities. Specifically, the stakeholders requested that a new method address the different types of pH analyzers and require calibration frequency, calibration verification, sampling, and other analytical aspects to assure that the procedure is robust and applicable to the monitoring configurations that exist in drinking water public utilities.
EPA Method 150.3 allows the use of bench-top, portable and continuous monitoring pH meters including newer sensor technologies that are designed for the analysis of pH (
EPA has determined that EPA Method 150.3 is equally effective for measuring pH, relative to EPA Methods 150.1 and 150.2. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams (2017a). EPA is therefore approving use of EPA Method 150.3 for standalone and continuous online pH monitoring of drinking water. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (
1. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods). In 2007, the GA method (GA 2004) for determination of radium-226 and radium-228 by gamma spectrometry was approved in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR 141.25(a). The method had undergone evaluation through the drinking water Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) program and was examined for acceptability through a multi-laboratory validation study. The validation study assessed system background, sensitivity, precision and accuracy for drinking water samples drawn from multiple sources around the United States. Standard Method 7500-Ra E published in the 22nd edition (APHA 2012) and its identical online version, 7500-Ra E-07 (APHA 2007) were developed directly from the GA gamma spectrometry method, and thus entail the same sample collection and handling protocols, sample preparation, detection procedure, and method performance data.
EPA has determined that Standard Methods 7500-Ra E and 7500-Ra E-07 are equally effective, relative to the approved GA method. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith (2017a). EPA is therefore approving Standard Methods 7500-Ra E and 7500-
An additional new online Standard Method 7110 D-17 (APHA 2017) was submitted for evaluation as an alternative to the approved EPA Method 900.0 (USEPA 1980) for the analysis of gross alpha and gross beta activity in drinking water. Standard Method 7110 D-17 involves the simultaneous analysis of gross alpha and gross beta activities by liquid scintillation counting using alpha/beta discrimination.
EPA Method 900.0 was promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR 141.25(a) as a screening method to determine whether specific radionuclide analyses are required. While technically simple to perform, the accuracy of the results obtained with EPA Method 900.0 can be affected by the radionuclides used for calibration, variability in the drinking water dissolved solids, and the sample geometry. Sample self-absorption occurs when radioactive emissions interact with the solid film of residue, which results from evaporating the drinking water samples to dryness. This significantly limits the level of dissolved solids that can be tolerated.
In the liquid scintillation method, self-absorption does not occur as long as solids are dissolved and homogeneously mixed with the scintillation cocktail. The performance of Standard Method 7110 D-17 was evaluated through a multi-laboratory study that assessed the sensitivity, background, accuracy and precision in drinking water matrices containing variable dissolved solids levels. EPA has determined that Standard Method 7110 D-17 is equally as effective for gross alpha and gross beta measurement as the approved EPA Method 900.0. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith and Wendelken (2017). EPA is therefore approving the use of Standard Method 7110 D-17 for gross alpha and gross beta determination in drinking water.
The online version is available at
2. ASTM International. EPA compared the most recent versions of seven ASTM International methods to the earlier versions of those methods that are currently approved in 40 CFR part 141. The new versions included changes such as:
Changes between the earlier approved version and the most recent version of each method are described more fully in Smith (2017b). The additional revisions involve editorial changes (
EPA is thus approving the use of the following ASTM methods for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:
An additional ASTM Method D 7283-17 (ASTM 2017) was submitted for evaluation as an alternate test method to the approved EPA Method 900.0 (USEPA 1980) for the analysis of gross alpha and gross beta activity in drinking water. ASTM Method D 7283-17 involves the simultaneous analysis of gross alpha and gross beta activities by liquid scintillation counting using alpha/beta discrimination.
EPA Method 900.0 was promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR 141.25(a) as a screening method to determine whether specific radionuclide analyses are required. While technically simple to perform, the accuracy of the results obtained with EPA Method 900.0 can be affected by the radionuclides used for calibration, variability in the drinking water dissolved solids, and the sample geometry. Sample self-absorption occurs when radioactive emissions interact with the solid film of residue, which results from evaporating drinking water samples to dryness. This significantly limits the level of dissolved solids that can be tolerated.
In the liquid scintillation method, self-absorption does not occur as long as solids are dissolved and homogeneously mixed with the scintillation cocktail. The performance of ASTM Method D 7283-17 was evaluated through a multi-laboratory study that assessed the sensitivity, background, accuracy and precision in drinking water matrices containing variable dissolved solids levels. EPA has determined that ASTM Method D 7283-17 is equally as effective for gross alpha and gross beta measurement as the approved EPA Method 900.0. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith and Wendelken (2017). EPA is therefore approving the use of ASTM D 7283-17 for gross alpha and gross beta determination in drinking water.
The ASTM methods are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or
1. Pathogen Detection Systems, Inc., “TECTA
2. Thermo Fisher Method 557.1—Determination of Haloacetic Acids in Drinking Water using Two-Dimensional Ion Chromatography with Suppressed Conductivity Detection (Thermo Fisher 2017a). Thermo Fisher Method 557.1 is a method for the determination of haloacetic acids (HAAs) in drinking water using a multiple cut, two-dimensional ion chromatography (IC) technology that separates the HAAs from matrix interferences in the first dimension, followed by resolution of the HAAs on a small-bore column in the second dimension. Detection and quantitation in the second dimension are accomplished by suppressed conductivity measurement.
The sum of five HAAs (monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, and dibromoacetic acid) is regulated as “HAA5.” The approved methods for HAA5 are listed at 40 CFR 141.131(b)(1). The performance of Thermo Fisher Method 557.1 for each of the five regulated HAAs was compared to the performance criteria established in the approved EPA Methods 552.2 (USEPA 1995) and 552.3, Revision 1.0 (USEPA 2003) for the same compounds. Performance was demonstrated in a variety of drinking water samples derived from both surface and ground water sources. Successful matrix elimination in the first dimension was demonstrated by analysis of high ionic strength matrices containing common anions in drinking water such as chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate and nitrate. Performance results are summarized in the method validation summary report (Thermo Fisher 2017b). EPA has determined that Thermo Fisher Method 557.1 is equally effective for measuring HAA5 relative to the approved EPA Methods 552.2 and 552.3. The basis for this determination is discussed in Smith (2017c). Therefore, EPA is approving Thermo Fisher Method 557.1 for determining HAA5 in drinking water. A copy of the method is available from Thermo Fisher Scientific, 490 Lakeside Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94085 (
3. Tintometer Lovibond PTV 1000 Method—Continuous Measurement of Drinking Water Turbidity Using a Lovibond PTV 1000 White Light LED Turbidimeter (Tintometer 2016a). The Tintometer Lovibond PTV 1000 Method uses light emitting diode (LED) nephelometry to continuously measure turbidity in drinking water. The LED emits white light in the visible spectrum between 380 nm and 780 nm, with spectral peak response between 400 nm and 600 nm. The method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by a drinking water sample under defined conditions with the intensity of light scattered by a standard reference suspension. The PTV 1000 turbidimeter incorporates a sample deaerator to remove air bubbles and uses heated optics to prevent condensation.
Approved methods for turbidity are listed at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1). The performance characteristics of the Lovibond PTV 1000 Method were compared to the performance characteristics of the approved Hach Filter Trak Method 10133 (Hach Company 2000). The validation study report (Tintometer 2016b) summarizes the results obtained from the turbidimeters placed online at three different utilities. Each utility used surface water sources, but different treatment technologies. Sampling was important to ensure representative tracking and response times between the turbidimeters. The sample stream flowed to a manifold that split it into equal streams, with one stream leading to each instrument in the study.
EPA has determined that the Lovibond PTV 1000 Method is equally effective relative to Hach Filter Trak Method 10133. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams (2017b). Therefore, EPA is approving the Lovibond PTV 1000 Method for determining turbidity in drinking water. A copy of the method is available from Tintometer, Inc., 6456 Parkland Drive, Sarasota, FL 34243 (
4. Tintometer Lovibond PTV 2000 Method—Continuous Measurement of Drinking Water Turbidity Using a Lovibond PTV 2000 660-nm LED Turbidimeter (Tintometer 2016c). The Tintometer Lovibond PTV 2000 Method uses light emitting diode (LED) nephelometry to continuously measure turbidity in drinking water. The 660 nm LED has a peak emitting wavelength between 650 nm and 670 nm. Use of a 660 nm LED source reduces interferences due to dissolved organics and sample color. The method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by a drinking water sample under defined conditions with the intensity of light scattered by a standard reference suspension. The PTV 2000 turbidimeter incorporates a sample deaerator to remove air bubbles and uses heated optics to prevent condensation.
Approved methods for turbidity are listed at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1). The performance characteristics of the Lovibond PTV 2000 Method were compared to the performance characteristics of the approved Hach
EPA has determined that the Lovibond PTV 2000 Method is equally effective relative to Hach Filter Trak Method 10133. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams (2017c). Therefore, EPA is approving the Lovibond PTV 2000 Method for determining turbidity in drinking water. A copy of the method is available from Tintometer, Inc., 6456 Parkland Drive, Sarasota, FL 34243 (
5. Tintometer Lovibond PTV 6000 Method—Continuous Measurement of Drinking Water Turbidity Using a Lovibond PTV 6000 Laser Turbidimeter (Tintometer 2016d). The Tintometer Lovibond PTV 6000 Method uses laser nephelometry to continuously measure turbidity in drinking water. The method uses a 685 nm laser diode with a peak emitting center wavelength between 650 nm and 690 nm. The incident laser light is a highly collimated beam of high energy light and its small diameter reduces stray light interference, resulting in improved method sensitivity. The method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by a drinking water sample under defined conditions with the intensity of light scattered by a standard reference suspension. The PTV 6000 turbidimeter incorporates a sample deaerator to remove air bubbles and uses heated optics to prevent condensation.
Approved methods for turbidity are listed at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1). The performance characteristics of the Lovibond PTV 6000 Method were compared to the performance characteristics of the approved Hach Filter Trak Method 10133 (Hach Company 2000). The validation study report (Tintometer 2016b) summarizes the results obtained from the turbidimeters placed online at three different utilities. Each utility used surface water sources, but different treatment technologies. Sampling was important to ensure representative tracking and response times between the turbidimeters. The sample stream flowed to a manifold that split it into equal streams, with one stream leading to each instrument in the study.
EPA has determined that the Lovibond PTV 6000 Method is equally effective relative to Hach Filter Trak Method 10133. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams (2017d). Therefore, EPA is approving the Lovibond PTV 6000 Method for determining turbidity in drinking water. A copy of the method is available from Tintometer, Inc., 6456 Parkland Drive, Sarasota, FL 34243 (
As noted in Section II, under the terms of SDWA section 1401(1), this streamlined method approval action is not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 141 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation increases existing tolerances for residues of fenpyroximate in or on dried citrus pulp, citrus oil, and the citrus fruit group 10-10. Nichino America, Inc. requested these tolerance increases under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective July 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 25, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0307, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0307 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 25, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0307, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the level of the citrus oil tolerance from 14 ppm to 15 ppm. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fenpyroximate including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fenpyroximate follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The effects following repeated oral exposures to fenpyroximate were based on systemic toxicity (no specific target organ/tissue identified). The most sensitive species tested was the dog. The effects reported in the dog included slight bradycardia, deficits in food consumption, body weight, body-weight gain, and an increased incidence of emesis and diarrhea. Emaciation and torpor (sluggish inactivity) were reported in female dogs at lower dose levels than males. The highest dose tested in the dog (50 milligram/kilogram bodyweight/day (mg/kg bw/day)) resulted in first- and second-degree heart block, increased urea concentration, decreased glucose, and altered plasma electrolyte levels among other signs of toxicity. In subchronic and chronic studies with rats, the primary effect was decreased body-weight gain in both sexes with hematological changes (
In a rat prenatal developmental toxicity study, a dose level that marginally affected maternal body weight and food consumption also resulted in an increased litter incidence of increased thoracic ribs, indicating increased prenatal (qualitative) susceptibility. In the rabbits, there were no developmental effects reported at the levels tested. In the rat two-generation reproductive toxicity study, maternal toxicity (decreased body weight) and offspring toxicity (decreased lactational weight gain in both generations) occurred at the same dose.
There is no evidence that fenpyroximate specifically targets the nervous or immune system based on the results of recently submitted studies. In the acute neurotoxicity study, neurotoxicity signs such as decreases in motor activity occurred in the presence of other effects including decreases in body weight and food consumption, and in the absence of neuropathology. Similar results were noted in a delayed acute neurotoxicity study in the hen where no effects (neurotoxic or otherwise) were reported. The results of the rat subchronic neurotoxicity study did not indicate any neurotoxicity-specific effects; deficits in body weight and food consumption were the main effects reported. Similarly, the effects reported in a rat immunotoxicity study were limited to decreased body-weight gain.
In a 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats, there were clinical signs in females consisting of red nose and mouth/nasal discharge, decreased body weights, body-weight gains, and food consumption in males and females. There were also increased liver weights and hepatocellular necrosis reported in females.
In a 4-week rat inhalation study, treatment-related effects included clinical observations (labored breathing and rales), increased lung weights, decreases in body-weight gain and food consumption, and changes in hematology parameters (increased counts of erythrocytes and leukocytes). There were also histopathology findings in the nasal passage mucosa consisting of atrophy and squamous metaplasia.
Fenpyroximate was classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on the results of rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies. Genotoxicity studies including mutagenicity did not demonstrate any genotoxic potential associated with fenpyroximate.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fenpyroximate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenpyroximate used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for fenpyroximate. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and a Provisional Cranberry Model for fenpyroximate and its metabolites (M1 and M3) in surface water and with Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) for ground water, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fenpyroximate for acute exposures are estimated to be 43 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.27 ppb for ground water, and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 8.6 ppb for surface water and 0.27 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 43 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water and for the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 8.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
4.
EPA has not found fenpyroximate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fenpyroximate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fenpyroximate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
i. There was a clear NOAEL in the rat prenatal developmental toxicity study;
ii. The NOAEL for this developmental study is being used as POD for the acute dietary risk assessment for the population of concern-females 13-49 years old;
iii. In the rabbit, there were no developmental effects reported at the levels tested; and
iv. In the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, there was no indication of increased prenatal or postnatal susceptibility.
3.
i. The toxicity database for fenpyroximate is complete.
ii. There is no indication that fenpyroximate is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is evidence that fenpyroximate results in increased susceptibility
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fenpyroximate in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fenpyroximate.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography method with nitrogen/phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), Method S19) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. Method S19 has passed an Agency validation and has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for the combined residues of fenpyroximate and M-1 in snap beans and avocados. A data-gathering liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS) method is also available.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has established MRLs for fenpyroximate in or on citrus fruits at 0.5 ppm. This MRLs is different than the tolerance being established for fenpyroximate in the United States, however, harmonization with the Codex MRL is not possible because the U.S. tolerance expression includes an additional isomer and the U.S. use pattern requires a higher numerical value.
Based on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance-calculation procedure, the Agency is increasing the tolerance on citrus oil to 15 ppm rather than 14 ppm as proposed by the registrant.
Therefore, existing tolerances for residues of fenpyroximate are increased in or on citrus, dried pulp from 2.5 ppm to 4.0 ppm; citrus, oil from 10 ppm to 15 ppm; and fruit, citrus, group 10-10 from 0.50 ppm to 1.0 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation amends a tolerance for residues of ametoctradin in or on hops. BASF Corporation requested this tolerance amendment under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective July 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 25, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0518, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0518 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 25, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0518, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for ametoctradin including exposure resulting from the tolerance amended by this action, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).
In the
For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer to the May 9, 2012,
Adequate enforcement methodology using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has established an MRL for ametoctradin in or on hop, dried cones at 30 ppm. This MRL is different than the tolerance established for ametoctradin in the United States, however, the tolerance increase addressed by this document was requested to accommodate the importation of hops grown in the European Union into the United States. It is the Agency's understanding that Codex intends to raise the MRL for ametoctradin on hop, dried cones to 100 ppm.
Therefore, the existing tolerance for residues of ametoctradin, including its metabolites and degradates in or on hop, dried cones is increased from 10 ppm to 100 ppm.
This action amends a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of tolpyralate in or on field corn, popcorn, and sweet corn. ISK Biosciences Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective July 27, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 25, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0405, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0405 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0405, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for tolpyralate including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with tolpyralate follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The effects in the tolpyralate hazard database are similar to those seen with other hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibiting chemicals, including eye opacity and developmental skeletal defects. The major target organs identified were the eyes, kidney, liver, thyroid and developing skeleton. Other effects included pancreatic acinar cell single cell necrosis, gall bladder calculi, fur loss and/or tactile hair loss, and decreased body weights. No systemic toxicity was observed following a 28-day dermal exposure in the rat.
Neurotoxicity was not observed in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies in the rat. There was no indication of neurotoxicity to the fetus in developmental studies or during early postnatal development in a rat reproductive toxicity study. However, with chronic exposure, rats and mice showed effects on the nervous system that were indicative of a temporally-dependent response for neurotoxicity. Similar findings were not seen in the one-year dog study.
Developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit showed that the main effects on fetuses in both species were skeletal variations that are consistent with those observed from exposure to other HPPD inhibitors. These skeletal effects are considered to be evidence of increased quantitative and qualitative prenatal susceptibility. No immunotoxic potential was observed in a mouse immunotoxicity study; however, in the dog, inflammation associated with hyperostosis and lymph node hyperplasia in males was observed.
In the rat, an increase in the incidence of squamous cell carcinomas of the eye was observed. The increase in this tumor type is considered to be related to the eye opacities typically observed with compounds producing HPPD inhibition. The Agency has determined that tolpyralate shows “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity to humans” based on an increase in the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the eye in male rats in the rat carcinogenicity study. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats or in the mouse. Most genotoxicity studies did not show evidence of mutagenicity or clastogenicity. A mouse lymphoma cell gene mutation assay showed a dose-dependent, reproducible increase in mutant colonies, but the results of this study are considered inconclusive due to the insolubility of the test compound. However, all other genotoxicity studies, including an
The Agency concluded that the eye tumors resulted from long-term exposure to increased blood tyrosine levels as a result of HPPD inhibition. The eye is a target organ for HPPD inhibitors and causes opacities and keratitis with subchronic or chronic exposure. Eye tumors have been
The acute toxicity of tolpyralate is low, and it is not an eye or skin irritant or a dermal sensitizer.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tolpyralate as well as the NOAELs and the LOAELs from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
No adverse effects resulting from a single exposure and relevant for the general population were identified for tolpyralate; therefore, a point of departure for assessing acute risk for this population was not established. The fetal skeletal effects noted above are suitable for acute assessment of women of child-bearing age. The no-adverse effect level (NOAEL) for skeletal variations in the rabbit developmental toxicity study is 5 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day (lowest adverse effect level (LOAEL) = 50 mg/kg bw/day). Chronic exposure is being assessed based on the systemic effects (fur loss; eye opacity; liver; pancreas; kidney; thyroid and cerebellar effects) noted in the chronic oral toxicity study in rats, with a NOAEL of 0.93 mg/kg bw/day and a LOAEL of 97/126 (male/female) mg/kg bw/day. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tolpyralate used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for tolpyralate. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for tolpyralate in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of tolpyralate. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
The groundwater value was generated using the Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater (PRZM-GW) Model, and the surface water values were generated using the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM5) and the Variable Volume Water Model (VVWM). The EDWCs of tolpyralate for acute exposures are estimated to be 6.75 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 11.53 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures assessments are estimated to be 0.65 ppb for surface water and 10.18 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 11.53 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 10.18 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Tolpyralate is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
Although tolpyralate belongs to the class of chemicals whose mechanism of toxicity is the inhibition of HPPD, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to tolpyralate and other HPPD-inhibiting substances. There are marked differences among species in the ocular toxicity and other effects typically associated with tolpyralate and other substances that the inhibit HPPD. Ocular effects following treatment with HPPD-inhibitor herbicides are seen in the rat but not in the mouse. Monkeys also seem to be recalcitrant to the ocular toxicity induced by HPPD inhibition. One explanation for this species-specific response in ocular opacity may be related to species differences in the clearance of tyrosine. A metabolic pathway that involves the liver enzyme tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT) exists to remove tyrosine from the blood. In contrast to rats where ocular toxicity is observed following exposure to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, mice and humans are unlikely to achieve the levels of plasma tyrosine necessary to produce ocular opacities because the activity of TAT in these species is much greater compared to rats.
HPPD inhibitors (
Based on the available information about the potential mechanism of toxicity and the variability of effects between species, EPA has not assumed, for purposes of this tolerance action, that tolpyralate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
1.
2.
3.
i. The database for tolpyralate is considered complete with respect to FQPA assessment.
ii. There is no concern for neurotoxicity from single or subchronic exposures. Although neuropathology was observed at the LOAELs in the rat
iii. Evidence of quantitative and qualitative prenatal susceptibility was observed in the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies based on findings of fetal skeletal abnormalities at doses below those causing maternal toxicity. However, clear NOAELs and LOAELs were identified in both species and there are no residual uncertainties regarding the points of departure PODs or the endpoints of concern.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to tolpyralate in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by tolpyralate.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (ISK Biosciences Method JSM0433) for plant commodities is a LC-MS/MS method that can be used to analyze for parent tolpyralate and the metabolite MT-2153 concurrently. It has been developed and independently validated, and is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For all matrices and analytes, the level of quantification (LOQ), defined as the lowest level of method validation (LLMV) or lowest spiking level where acceptable precision and accuracy data were obtained, was determined to be 0.01 ppm. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.004 ppm.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for tolpyralate.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide tolpyralate in or on field corn (corn, field, grain; corn, field, forage; and corn, field, stover), sweet corn (corn, sweet, kernel + cob with husks removed; corn, sweet, forage; and corn, sweet, stover), and popcorn (corn, pop, grain and corn, pop, stover) at 0.01 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
Privacy Office, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0025, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general and privacy-related questions please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202-343-1717), Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to update applicable regulations to exempt portions of a newly established system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, this rule exempts portions of the “DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records,” which is being proposed concurrently with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking elsewhere in this issue of the
DHS is publishing this system of records document to provide transparency on how DHS collects, uses, maintains, and disseminates information relating to foreign nationals who seek access to DHS and partner U.S. Government (USG) agency personnel, information, facilities, programs, research, studies, and information technology (IT) systems. The DHS Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO)/Center for International Safety & Security (CISS) Foreign Access Management (FAM) program uses the Foreign Access Management System (FAMS) to manage the risk assessment process for foreign nationals requesting access to DHS and partner agencies. DHS is responsible for conducting screening of all foreign nationals and foreign entities seeking access to DHS personnel, information, facilities, programs, and IT systems, including: Dual U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPR) representing foreign interests; LPRs providing construction or contractual services (
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records. Some information in DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to avoid disclosure of screening techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS's ability to obtain information from third
In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.
A notice of system of records for DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records is also published in this issue of the
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
6 U.S.C. 101
78. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. When an investigation has been completed, information on disclosures made may continue to be exempted if the fact that an investigation occurred remains sensitive after completion.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the top stringer joints at rib 18 are an area of uniform stress distribution, which indicates that cracks may develop in adjacent stringers at the same time. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the upper wing skin and top stringer joints, and modification of the stringer joint couplings if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 11, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 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
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage (WFD). It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0023, dated February 10, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R airplanes. The MCAI states:
In response to the FAA Part 26 rule change concerning Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD), all wing structural items of the A300-600 design deemed potentially susceptible to WFD were assessed. The top stringer joints at Rib 18 were highlighted as an area of uniform stress distribution, indicating that cracks may develop in adjacent stringers at the same time which is known as Multi Element Damage (MED). Each affected stringer joint consists of three main load transferring parts: An overlapping flange, two straps attached through the stringer web and a strap on the top flange. All the components of the joint are attached with fasteners. The fastener holes were the subject of a MED WFD analysis, which showed that cracking could occur from a number of the holes in the joint on stringers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.
Prompted by the conclusion of the WFD analysis, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6118 to provide modification instructions. The modification will both re-life via oversizing and inspect via non-destructive test a defined number of stringer joint fastener holes at Rib 18. This modification will delay the onset of cracking at the stringer joint, providing it is completed at the specified time and will delay the requirement for subsequent inspection.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a detailed visual inspection (DVI) [for damage, including cracking] of the upper wing skin and the top stringer joints at Rib 18, [and corrective action if necessary] and modification of the stringer joint couplings at Rib 18, on both wings [as applicable].
The modification includes a related investigative action,
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6118, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the upper wing skin and top stringer joints at rib 18, and modification of the stringer joint couplings. 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 11, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, B4-603, C4-605R Variant F, B4-620, B4-622, and F4-605R airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers except Model A300 F4-605R airplanes that have embodied Airbus modification 12699 in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the top stringer joints at rib 18 are an area of uniform stress distribution, which indicates that cracks may develop in adjacent stringers at the same time. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage (including cracking) at the stringer joints, which could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD apply.
(1) Group 1 airplanes are defined as Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes.
(2) Group 2 airplanes are defined as Airbus Model A300 C4-605 Variant F and F4-605R (if in pre-modification 12699 configuration) airplanes.
(3) Short range (SR) is defined as airplanes with an average flight time of less than 1.5 flight hours per flight cycle.
(4) Long range (LR) is defined as airplanes with an average flight time equal to or higher than 1.5 flight hours per flight cycle.
(5) For determining the “short range” and “long range” airplanes, the average flight time is the total accumulated flight hours, counted from take-off to touch-down, divided by the total accumulated flight cycles at the effective date of this AD.
Not before exceeding the applicable lower thresholds as specified in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, and within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD, as applicable: Accomplish a detailed visual
(1) For Group 1, LR airplanes: Inspect at the time specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Before exceeding 32,500 flight cycles or 70,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first since first flight of the airplane.
(ii) Within 700 flight cycles, 1,500 flight hours, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For Group 1, SR airplanes: Inspect at the time specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Before exceeding 35,100 flight cycles or 52,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the first flight of the airplane.
(ii) Within 700 flight cycles or 1,000 flight hours, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For Group 2, LR airplanes: Inspect before exceeding 35,000 flight cycles or 75,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the first flight of the airplane.
(4) For Group 2, SR airplanes: Inspect before exceeding 37,800 flight cycles or 56,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first since the first flight of the airplane.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6118, Revision 01, dated January 31, 2017, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6118, dated June 30, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0023, dated February 10, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame, which severed the inner chord and web. This proposed AD would require inspecting the fuselage frame for existing repairs, repetitive inspections, and applicable repairs. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 11, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received a report of a crack in the fuselage frame at station (STA) 1640, at stringer (S) 14-R, adjacent to door stop number 5. The inner chord and web of the STA 1640 fuselage frame had been severed after developing a crack. Analysis revealed that the crack was caused by fatigue due to flight loads and pressurization of the fuselage. Cracking of the fuselage frame, if not detected and corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the fuselage frame for existing frame repairs, repetitive high frequency eddy current and low frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in specified areas with no existing frame repair, and repair of any cracking.
We also reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017. The service information provides compliance times for accomplishing the procedures identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; for airplanes on which APB blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed.
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 are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, described previously, except for differences between this proposed AD and the service information that are identified in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this Boeing service information at
For airplanes on which blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate ST01518SE, the repetitive compliance times have a range, depending on airplane configuration. The earliest repetitive interval is 1,950 flight cycles; the latest repetitive interval is 8,600 flight cycles.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 606 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repair specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue
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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 11, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in the fuselage frame at station (STA) 1640, which severed the inner chord and web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage frame at STA 1640, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which blended or scimitar blended winglets are installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate ST01518SE: Do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016; except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. Do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, specifies contacting Boeing for instructions, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0108, dated November 14, 2016, and APB Alert Service Bulletin AP757-53-001, Revision 1, dated June 21, 2017, use the phrase “after the original issue of this service bulletin” for determining compliance, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (j)(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, Los Angeles 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) Except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(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 substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. 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 Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD 2016-20-11, for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-20-11 requires repetitive inspections of the external area of the aft cargo door sill beam for cracking, repetitive inspections for fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2016-20-11, we have determined that reinforcement of the aft cargo door sill beam area is necessary to address the unsafe condition, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would retain the inspections for cracking, and repair if necessary; and require reinforcement of the aft cargo door sill beam area. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 11, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 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
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On September 28, 2016, we issued AD 2016-20-11, Amendment 39-18677 (81 FR 85837, November 29, 2016) (“AD 2016-20-11”), for certain Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-20-11 was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks on the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate. AD 2016-20-11 requires repetitive ultrasonic and detailed inspections of the external area of the aft cargo door sill beam for cracking, repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate, and repair if necessary. We issued AD 2016-20-11 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate, which could result in the loss of the door locking function and subsequently, loss of the cargo door in flight and rapid decompression.
Since we issued AD 2016-20-11, Airbus has developed a reinforcement modification of the aft cargo door sill beam area, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We have determined the reinforcement of the aft cargo door sill beam area is necessary to address the unsafe condition.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0048, dated March 15, 2017; corrected April 20, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
In the frame of the widespread fatigue damage (WFD) compliance study and after an in-service occurrence, the area of the aft cargo door sill beam and adjacent structure was identified as sensitive to the fatigue loads.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of multiple lock fittings, possibly resulting in loss of the cargo door in flight and consequent explosive decompression of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W005-14 providing inspection instructions and, consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2014-0097-E [which corresponded to FAA AD 2014-12-06] to require repetitive ultrasonic inspections (US) or detailed inspections (DET) of the aft cargo door sill beam area [and corrective actions if necessary].
After that [EASA] AD was issued, further analysis indicated that repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections needed to be introduced, and Airbus published Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-2139 and SB A300-53-6179 to provide instructions. Prompted by this determination, EASA issued AD 2015-0150, retaining the requirements of EASA Emergency AD 2014-0097-E, which was superseded, and required repetitive HFEC inspections of the concerned areas. The first HFEC inspection terminated the repetitive US/DET inspections. That [EASA] AD also required the inspection results to be reported.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus developed a reinforcement modification of the aft cargo door sill beam area, and published Airbus SB A310-53-2141 and SB A300-53-6181, which were revised lately, to make this available for in-service application.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0150 [which corresponded to FAA AD 2016-20-11], which is superseded, and requires modification [reinforcement] of the aft cargo door sill beam, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
This [EASA] AD is re-published to correct the compliance time description in Table 4.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6181, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2015; and A310-53-2141, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2015. This service information describes procedures for reinforcing the aft cargo door sill beam. These service bulletins are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6179, dated December 12, 2014; and A310-53-2139, dated December 12, 2014. This service information describes procedures for repetitive HFEC inspections of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate. These service bulletins are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
Airbus has also issued AOT A53W005-14, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2014, which describes procedures for doing an ultrasonic inspection or detailed inspection of the aft cargo door sill beam external area for cracking.
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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this AD affects 75 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 11, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2016-20-11, Amendment 39-18677 (81 FR 85837, November 29, 2016) (“AD 2016-20-11”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 05438 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus Modification 12046 has been embodied in production.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks on the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate, which could result in the loss of the door locking function and subsequently, loss of the cargo door in flight and rapid decompression.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. Within the compliance time identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable: Do an ultrasonic inspection or detailed inspection of the aft cargo door sill beam external area for cracking, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W005-14, dated April 22, 2014; or Airbus AOT A53W005-14, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2014. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 275 flight cycles. As of January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-20-11), use only AOT A53W005-14, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2014, to comply with the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 30,000 flight cycles or more since the airplane's first flight as of July 2, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-12-06, Amendment 39-17867, (79 FR 34403, June 17, 2014) (“AD 2014-12-06”)): Within 50 flight cycles after July 2, 2014.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 18,000 flight cycles or more, but fewer than 30,000 flight cycles since the airplane's first flight as of July 2, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-12-06): Within 275 flight cycles after July 2, 2014.
(3) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 18,000 flight cycles since the airplane's first flight as of July 2, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-12-06): Before exceeding 18,275 flight cycles since the airplane's first flight.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. Accomplishment of a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking, in accordance with Airbus AOT A53W005-14, dated April 22, 2014; or AOT A53W005-14, Revision 01, dated April 29, 2014; terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane. If any cracking is found during the HFEC inspection, 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).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to “Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application” on Airbus World (
(1) If the inspection was done on or after January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-20-11): Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-20-11): Submit the report within 30 days after January 3, 2017.
This paragraph restates the definitions specified in paragraph (j) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. Paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD refer to airplane groups, as identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes on which an HFEC inspection was accomplished as specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14.
(2) Airplanes on which no HFEC inspection was accomplished as specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14, that have accumulated more than 18,000 total flight cycles as of January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-20-11).
(3) Airplanes on which no HFEC inspection was accomplished as specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14, that have accumulated 18,000 total flight cycles or fewer as of January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-20-11).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. At the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(3) of this AD: Do an HFEC inspection for fatigue cracking of the cargo door sill beam, lock fitting, and torsion box plate, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6179, dated December 12, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2139, dated December 12, 2014; as applicable. Repeat the HFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,600 flight cycles.
(1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Inspect within 4,600 flight cycles after the most recent HFEC inspection specified in Airbus AOT A53W005-14.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Inspect within 2,000 flight cycles after January 3, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2016-20-11).
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD: Inspect before exceeding 13,000 total flight cycles since the airplane's
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (k) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
This paragraph restates the terminating action of paragraph (m)(1) of AD 2016-20-11, with no changes. For any airplane identified in paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3) of this AD, accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
At the latest of the applicable times specified in paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of this AD: Reinforce the aft cargo door sill beam area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2141, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6181, Revision 01, dated July 2, 2015; as applicable.
(1) Before exceeding 19,600 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane.
(2) Within 2,300 flight cycles after the last HFEC or detailed inspection required by this AD that was accomplished before the effective date of this AD.
(3) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (n) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (k) of this AD for that airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6181, dated June 26, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2141, dated June 26, 2015; as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-20-11 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0048, dated March 15, 2017; corrected April 20, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rule would amend regulations of the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to set forth the reporting requirements for the 2017 BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. The BE-12 survey is conducted every five years; the prior survey covered 2012. The benchmark survey covers the universe of foreign direct investment in the United States and is BEA's most detailed survey of such investment. For the 2017 benchmark survey, BEA proposes changes in data items collected, the design of the survey forms, and the reporting requirements for the survey to satisfy changing data needs, improve data quality and the effectiveness and efficiency of data collection.
Comments on this proposed rule will receive consideration if submitted in writing on or before 5 p.m. September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0691-AA86, and referencing the agency name (Bureau of Economic Analysis), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Patricia Abaroa, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE-50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233; email
The BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, is a mandatory survey and is conducted once every five years by BEA under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.”
In 2012, BEA issued a rule (77 FR 24373) that established guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemaking. Persons are required to respond to other BEA surveys conducted under these guidelines only when they are contacted by BEA. Under this proposed rule, however, persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, would be required to respond whether or not they are contacted by BEA.
The benchmark survey covers the universe of foreign direct investment in the United States in terms of value and is BEA's most detailed survey of such investment. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.
The purpose of the benchmark survey is to obtain universe data on the financial and operating characteristics of U.S. affiliates and on positions and transactions between U.S. affiliates and their foreign parent groups (which are defined to include all foreign parents and foreign affiliates of foreign parents). These data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of foreign direct investment in the United States, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. economy. Such data are generally found in enterprise-level accounting records of respondent companies. These data are used to derive current universe estimates of direct investment from sample data collected in other BEA surveys in non-benchmark years. In particular, they serve as benchmarks for the quarterly direct investment estimates included in the U.S. international transactions, international investment position, and national income and product accounts, and for annual estimates of the foreign direct investment position in the United States and of the activities of the U.S. affiliates of foreign companies.
This proposed rule would amend 15 CFR 801 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. 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 comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (PRA).
The proposed changes would amend the regulations and the survey forms for the BE-12 benchmark survey. These amendments include changes in data items collected, the design of the survey forms, and the reporting requirements for the survey.
BEA proposes to change the reporting requirements for certain private funds that file the BE-12 survey. BEA, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, proposes to instruct reporters of investments in private funds that meet the definition of direct investment (that is, ownership by one person of 10 percent or more of the voting interest of a business enterprise) but display characteristics of portfolio investment (specifically, investors who do not intend to control or influence the management of an operating company) to report through the Treasury International Capital (TIC) reporting system, where other related portfolio investments are already being reported, and not to report on BEA's direct investment surveys. Direct investment in operating companies, including investment by and through private funds, will continue to be reported to BEA. This change has already been implemented on BEA's other surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States: The BE-605, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States; the BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States; and the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. Additional information on the change in reporting requirements for reporters of investments in private funds that do not meet the definition of direct investment and the implementation of changes on BEA's surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States can be found in the rule issued in 2016 (81 FR 72519).
BEA proposes to add, delete, and modify some items on the benchmark survey forms. Most of the additions are proposed in response to suggestions from data users and to provide more information about foreign direct investment in the United States. The following items would be added to the benchmark survey:
1. Expand sales of services breakdown on the BE-12A form to include sales of services to other U.S. affiliates of the same affiliated foreign group, sales to unaffiliated U.S. persons or entities, sales to the affiliated foreign group, sales to foreign affiliates owned by the U.S. affiliate responding to the survey, and sales to all other foreign persons or entities. Previously, BEA collected sales
2. Expand state-level data items on the BE-12A and BE-12B forms to include manufacturing employment; gross book value of property, plant and equipment; and the portion of the gross book value that is commercial property. BEA added these data items back to the BE-15 annual survey beginning in 2014, after having eliminated them in 2008. This information was previously collected, then discontinued for the 2012 benchmark survey, but the data are of interest to users and Congress provided funding to restore these data items.
3. Add state of location to the BE-12C form, Part I. This will improve estimation of employment and property, plant, and equipment by location for smaller entities reporting on this abbreviated form.
4. Add a question to collect the 20-digit Legal Entity Identifier of the U.S. affiliate on the BE-12A and BE-12B forms. This additional information will assist in matching entities across databases enabling better verification of data and linking to other surveys and publicly available data for these entities.
5. Add a question asking whether the U.S. affiliate is a publicly traded company, and if it is, collect the stock exchange on which it is listed and the ticker symbol on the BE-12A and BE-12B forms. This additional information will assist in matching entities across databases enabling better verification of data and linking to other surveys and publicly available data for these entities.
6. Add questions separating payables, receivables, interest payments, and interest receipts by foreign parents and foreign affiliates of foreign parents (FAFPs) on the BE-12B. Previously, data for foreign parents and FAFPs were combined for these data items. This change will better align the data collected in the BE-12 benchmark survey with the BE-605 quarterly survey and assist in updating the statistics on foreign direct investment transactions, positions, and income to include the benchmark survey results.
7. Add a Part III to BE-12C to expand information collected on foreign ownership to better align the data collected on the BE-12 benchmark survey with the BE-605 quarterly survey and assist in updating the statistics on foreign direct investment to include the benchmark survey results. Part III will include new questions on whether each parent has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the U.S. affiliate being reported, and if direct, the equity percentage of the parent's ownership in the affiliate. Part III will also include existing questions that were in Part II of the 2012 BE-12 survey about the name and industry of each foreign parent and name, country, and industry of each ultimate beneficial owner in addition to the new questions. Part III will be preceded by a request at the end of Part II to enter the number of foreign parents and instructions to file a Part III for each foreign parent. Part III will only be completed by larger BE-12C filers (those with assets, sales, or net income greater than $20 million).
8. Add a private funds exemption option to the BE-12 Claim for Not Filing. This is a change to prior reporting requirements for all BEA direct investment surveys and exempts certain private funds that were previously required to report.
9. Add U.S. tax withheld on dividends to the BE-12B Part III to better align the data collected in the BE-12 benchmark survey with the BE-605 quarterly survey and assist in updating the statistics on foreign direct investment to include the benchmark survey results.
10. Add intercompany debt payables and receivables to the BE-12C Part I to provide information on debt transactions of smaller affiliates, which will improve the foreign direct investment statistics in the U.S. international transactions and international investment position accounts.
11. Add questions to the BE-12C to determine if the U.S. affiliate has consolidated and unconsolidated affiliates. Add Supplement A (list of the U.S. business enterprises consolidated) and Supplement B (list of U.S. business enterprises not consolidated) to the BE-12C. These items aid in determining whether correct entities are being consolidated, in improving coverage of indirectly-owned affiliates, and in linking data across datasets. These items are already a part of the BE-12A and BE-12B.
BEA also proposes to eliminate the following items from the benchmark survey: Questions on contract manufacturing services will be deleted (BE-12A, items 24, 25, 26, and 27). The data collected have not met expectations for use and alternative methods are being developed to address the issue. Questions on wholesale and retail trade industry activities will be deleted (BE-12A, items 63a, 63b, and 63c). Similar information is available from other sources. A question on prior year closing balance for voting interest will be removed from the BE-12C. This information is not necessary as many of the BE-12C affiliates do not file in non-benchmark years so no comparison to prior year is needed.
In addition, BEA proposes to make the following modifications to the survey forms: Modifying instructions on the BE-12B form for employment by location to explain the expanded state-level data items (see Item 2. in Additions). This modification is consistent with the change made to the annual survey forms following the addition of the data items listed in Item 2. in Additions. Modifying question 87 on the BE-12A to separate amounts reported for “change in entity” and “change in accounting methods or principles.” Adding a checkbox asking if the change in accounting methods or principles is due in whole or in part to early implementation of FASB ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). Identifying companies that have implemented this change early may assist in assessing the impact of full implementation on BEA's statistics.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. The requirement will be submitted to OMB for approval as a reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection under OMB control number 0608-0042.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The BE-12 survey, as proposed, is expected to result in the filing of reports from approximately 22,700 U.S. affiliates. Total annual burden is calculated by multiplying the estimated number of submissions of each form (A, B, C, and Claim for Not Filing) by the average hourly burden per form and summing the results for the four forms. The respondent burden for this collection of information will vary from one company to another. The estimated
Comments are requested concerning: 1. 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. the accuracy of the burden estimate; 3. ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and 4. ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the proposed rule should be sent to both BEA and OMB following the instructions given in the
The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this proposed rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Most of the U.S. business enterprises that are required to file the survey are units of multinational enterprises. To qualify as a small business, the multinational enterprise as a whole must be evaluated when determining if the business meets the size standards set by the Small Business Administration. While BEA only collects information on the U.S. portion of the multinational enterprise, the size determination takes into account the sizes of both the U.S. businesses and their foreign parents. BEA estimates that fewer than 1 percent of the U.S. businesses required to file the BE-12 survey are considered small businesses based on the SBA size standards.
For the few small businesses that meet the reporting requirements of the survey, BEA has attempted to keep burden to a minimum by asking only those questions that are considered essential. The amount of information required to be reported by each U.S. affiliate is determined by the size of the affiliate's assets, sales, or net income or loss. The reporting thresholds for Form BE-12A (the longest form) and Form BE-12B are $300 million and $60 million, respectively. All affiliates below $60 million will file on Form BE-12C (the shortest form). The smallest affiliates, those below $20 million, are only required to report a few items on Form BE-12C. These data items are likely to be readily available from existing business records. Compliance with the survey should take less than one hour. The cost should be less than $40.00 to a small business. Because few small businesses are required to file the survey and because those impacted are subject to only minimal reporting burden, the Chief Counsel for Regulation certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Economic statistics, Foreign direct investment in the United States, International transactions, Multinational enterprises, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA proposes to amend 15 CFR part 801 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 15 U.S.C. 4908; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; E.O. 11961 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 86), as amended by E.O. 12318 (3 CFR, 1981 Comp. p. 173); and E.O. 12518 (3 CFR, 1985 Comp. p. 348).
Except for surveys subject to rulemaking in §§ 801.7, 801.8, 801.9, and 801.10, reporting requirements for all other surveys conducted by the Bureau of Economic Analysis shall be as follows:
(a) Notice of specific reporting requirements, including who is required to report, the information to be reported, the manner of reporting, and the time and place of filing reports, will be published by the Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the
(b) In accordance with section 3104(b)(2) of title 22 of the United States Code, persons notified of these surveys and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall furnish, under oath, any report containing information which is determined to be necessary to carry out the surveys and studies provided for by the Act; and
(c) Persons not notified in writing of their filing obligation by the Bureau of Economic Analysis are not required to complete the survey.
A BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, will be conducted covering 2017. All legal authorities, provisions, definitions, and requirements contained in §§ 801.1 through 801.2 and §§ 801.4 through 801.6 are applicable to this survey. Specific additional rules and regulations for the BE-12 survey are given in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. More detailed instructions are given on the report forms and instructions.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) Total assets (do not net out liabilities);
(ii) Sales or gross operating revenues, excluding sales taxes; or
(iii) Net income after provision for U.S. income taxes.
(2) Form BE-12B must be completed by:
(i) A majority-owned U.S. affiliate if, on a fully consolidated basis, or, in the case of real estate investment, on an aggregated basis, any one of the three items listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section (not just the foreign parent's share), was greater than $60 million (positive or negative) but none of these items was greater than $300 million (positive or negative) at the end of, or for, its fiscal year that ended in calendar year 2017.
(ii) A minority-owned U.S. affiliate (for purposes of this survey, a “minority-owned” U.S. affiliate is one in which the combined direct and indirect ownership interest of all foreign parents of the U.S. affiliate is 50 percent or less) if, on a fully consolidated basis, or, in the case of real estate investment, on an aggregated basis, any one of the three items listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section (not just the foreign parent's share), was greater than $60 million (positive or negative) at the end of, or for, its fiscal year that ended in calendar year 2017.
(3) Form BE-12C must be completed by a U.S. affiliate if, on a fully consolidated basis, or, in the case of real estate investment, on an aggregated basis, none of the three items listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for a U.S. affiliate (not just the foreign parent's share), was greater than $60 million (positive or negative) at the end of, or for, its fiscal year that ended in calendar year 2017.
(4) BE-12 Claim for Not Filing will be provided for response by persons that are not subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-12 survey but have been contacted by BEA concerning their reporting status.
(d)
(e)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
Consistent with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended, this document invites interested persons to submit proposed changes to update and revise HUD's Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, its Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations, its Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, and its Manufactured Home Installation Program regulations. Proposed changes will be submitted to the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC) for review and consideration as part of its responsibility to provide periodic recommendations to HUD to adopt, revise, and interpret the HUD standards and regulations.
To ensure consideration, the deadline for submitting proposed changes from the public for the 2018-2019 review period is December 31, 2017. Any Proposals received after December 31, 2017 will be held until the 2020-2021 review period.
Proposed changes to the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, Procedural and Enforcement Regulations, Model Installation Standards, and Installation Program Regulations are to be submitted using the following URL address:
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator and Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9168, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 604(a) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 5401
Consistent with the Act, this document requests that interested persons provide proposed changes to revise or update the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations, the Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, and Manufactured Home Installation Program Regulations. Specifically, recommendations are requested that further HUD's efforts to increase the quality, durability, safety and affordability of manufactured homes; facilitate the availability of affordable manufactured homes and increase homeownership for all Americans; and encourage cost-effective and innovative construction techniques for manufactured homes.
To permit the MHCC to fully consider the proposed changes, commenters are encouraged to provide at least the following information:
• The specific section of the current Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, or Manufactured Home Installation Program Regulations that require revision or update, or whether the recommendation would require a new standard;
• Specific detail regarding the recommendation including a statement of the problem intended to be corrected or addressed by the recommendation, how the recommendation would resolve or address the problem, and the basis of the recommendation; and
• Information regarding whether the recommendation would result in increased costs to manufacturers or consumers and the value of the benefits derived from HUD's implementation of the recommendation, should be provided and discussed to the extent feasible.
The Act requires that an administering organization administer the process for the MHCC's development and interpretation of the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, and Manufactured Home Installation Program Regulations. The administering organization that has been selected by HUD to administer this process is Home Innovation Research Labs Inc. This document requests that proposed revisions be submitted to the MHCC for consideration through the administering organization, Home Innovation Research Labs. This organization will be responsible for ensuring delivery of all appropriately prepared proposed changes to the MHCC for its review and consideration.
The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and assigned OMB Control Number 2535-0116. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense; and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) are publishing this proposed rule to initiate the first step in a comprehensive, two-step process intended to review and revise the definition of “waters of the United States” consistent with the Executive Order signed on February 28, 2017, “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule.” This first step proposes to rescind the definition of “waters of the United States” in the Code of Federal Regulations to re-codify the definition of “waters of the United States,” which currently governs administration of the Clean Water Act, pursuant to a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit staying a definition of “waters of the United States” promulgated by the agencies in 2015. The agencies would apply the definition of “waters of the United States” as it is currently being implemented, that is informed by applicable agency guidance documents and consistent with Supreme Court decisions and longstanding practice. Proposing to re-codify the regulations that existed before the 2015 Clean Water Rule will provide continuity and certainty for regulated entities, the States, agency staff, and the public. In a second step, the agencies will pursue notice-and-comment rulemaking in which the agencies will conduct a substantive re-evaluation of the definition of “waters of the United States.”
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203, at
Ms. Donna Downing, Office of Water (4504-T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-2428; email address:
The regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” in this proposed rule is the same as the definition that existed prior to promulgation of the Clean Water Rule in 2015 and that has been in effect nationwide since the Clean Water Rule was stayed on October 9, 2015. The agencies will administer the regulations as they are currently being implemented consistent with Supreme Court decisions and longstanding practice as informed by applicable agency guidance documents.
State, tribal, and local governments have well-defined and longstanding relationships with the federal government in implementing CWA programs and these relationships are not altered by the proposed rule. This proposed rule will not establish any new regulatory requirements. Rather, the rule simply codifies the current legal
In this proposed rule, the agencies define the scope of “waters of the United States” that are protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 2015, the agencies published the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the United States'” (80 FR 37054, June 29, 2015), and on October 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the 2015 Rule nationwide pending further action of the court. The agencies propose to replace the stayed 2015 definition of “waters of the United States”, and re-codify the exact same regulatory text that existed prior to the 2015 rule, which reflects the current legal regime under which the agencies are operating pursuant to the Sixth Circuit's October 9, 2015 order. The proposed regulatory text would thus replace the stayed rulemaking text, and re-codify the regulatory definitions (at 33 CFR part 328 and 40 CFR parts 110; 112; 116; 117; 122; 230; 232; 300; 302; and 401) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as they existed prior to the promulgation of the stayed 2015 definition. If this proposed rule is finalized, the agencies would continue to implement those prior regulatory definitions), informed by applicable agency guidance documents and consistent with Supreme Court decisions and longstanding agency practice.
Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, Public Law 95-217, 91 Stat. 1566, 33 U.S.C. 1251
The CWA also provides that States retain their traditional role in preventing, reducing and eliminating pollution. The Act states that “[i]t is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources . . .” Section 101(b). States and Tribes voluntarily may assume responsibility for permit programs governing discharges of pollution under section 402 for any jurisdictional water bodies (section 402(b)), or of dredged or fill material discharges under section 404 (section 404(g)), with agency approval. (Section 404(g) provides that states may not assume permitting authority over certain specified waters and their adjacent wetlands.) States are also free to establish their own programs under state law to manage and protect waters and wetlands independent of the federal CWA. The statute's introductory purpose section thus commands the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pursue two policy goals simultaneously: (a) To restore and maintain the nation's waters; and (b) to preserve the States' primary responsibility and right to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.
The regulations defining the scope of federal CWA jurisdiction currently in effect, which this proposed rule would recodify, were established in large part in 1977 (42 FR 37122, July 19, 1977). While EPA administers most provisions in the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) administers the permitting program under section 404. During the 1980s, both of these agencies adopted substantially similar definitions (51 FR 41206, Nov. 13, 1986, amending 33 CFR 328.3; 53 FR 20764, June 6, 1988, amending 40 CFR 232.2).
Federal courts have reviewed the definition of “waters of the United States” and its application to a variety of factual circumstances. Three Supreme Court decisions, in particular, provide critical context and guidance in determining the appropriate scope of “waters of the United States.”
In
In
Five years after the
While the
After the
After issuance of the 2008 guidance, Members of Congress, developers, farmers, state and local governments, environmental organizations, energy companies and others asked the agencies to replace the guidance with a regulation that would provide clarity and certainty on the scope of the waters protected by the CWA.
Following public notice and comment on a proposed rule, the agencies published a final rule defining the scope of “waters of the United States” on June 29, 2015 (80 FR 37054). Thirty-one States and a number of other parties sought judicial review in multiple actions in Federal district courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal, raising concerns about the scope and legal authority of the 2015 rule. One district court issued an order granting a motion for preliminary injunction on the rule's effective date, finding that the thirteen State challengers were likely to succeed on their claims, including that the rule violated the congressional grant of authority to the agencies under the CWA and that it appeared likely the EPA failed to comply with Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements in promulgating the rule.
On February 28, 2017, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the `Waters of the United States' Rule.” Section 1 of the Order states, “[i]t is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation's navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” It directs the EPA and the Army to review the 2015 rule for consistency with the policy outlined in section 1, and to issue a proposed rule rescinding or revising the 2015 rule as appropriate and consistent with law. Section 2. The Executive Order also directs the agencies to consider interpreting the term “navigable waters” in a manner consistent with Justice Scalia's plurality opinion in
The agencies have the authority to rescind and revise the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States,” consistent with the guidance in the Executive Order, so long as the revised definition is authorized under the law and based on a reasoned explanation.
The Executive Order states that it is in the national interest to protect the nation's waters from pollution as well as to allow for economic growth, ensuring regulatory clarity, and providing due deference to States, as well as Congress. Executive Order section 1. These various priorities reflect, in part the CWA itself, which includes both the objective to “restore and maintain” the integrity of the nation's waters, as well as the policy to “recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and right of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution . . .” CWA sections 101(a), 101(b). Re-evaluating the best means of balancing these statutory priorities, as called for in the Executive Order, is well within the scope of authority that Congress has delegated to the agencies under the CWA.
This rulemaking is the first step in a two-step response to the Executive Order, intended to ensure certainty as to the scope of CWA jurisdiction on an interim basis as the agencies proceed to engage in the second step: A substantive review of the appropriate scope of “waters of the United States.”
In this proposed rule, the agencies would rescind the 2015 Clean Water Rule and replace it with a recodification of the regulatory text that governed the legal regime prior to the 2015 Clean Water Rule and that the agencies are
This rulemaking action is consistent with the February 28, 2017, Executive Order and the Clean Water Act. This action will consist of two steps. In this first step, the agencies are proposing as an interim action to repeal the 2015 definition of “waters of the United States” and codify the legal
In the 2015 rulemaking, the agencies described their task as “interpret[ing] the scope of the `waters of the United States' for the CWA in light of the goals, objectives, and policies of the statute, the Supreme Court case law, the relevant and available science, and the agencies' technical expertise and experience.” 80 FR 37054, 37060 (June 29, 2015). In so doing, the agencies properly acknowledged that a regulation defining “waters of the United States” in this area is not driven by any one type or piece of information, but rather must be the product of the evaluation and balancing of a variety of different types of information. That information includes scientific data as well as the policies articulated by Congress when it passed the Act. For example, the agencies recognized this construct in the preamble to the 2015 Rule by explaining that what constitutes a “significant nexus” to navigable waters “is not a purely scientific determination” and that “science does not provide bright line boundaries with respect to where `water ends' for purposes of the CWA.” 80 FR at 37060.
The objectives, goals, and policies of the statute are detailed in sections 101(a)-(g) of the statute, and guide the agencies' interpretation and application of the Clean Water Act. Section 101(a) of the Act states that the “objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,” and identifies several goals and national policies Congress believed would help the Act achieve that objective. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). When referring to the Act's objective, the 2015 rule referred specifically to Section 101(a). 80 FR at 37056.
In addition to the objective of the Act and the goals and policies identified to help achieve that objective in section 101(a), in section 101(b) Congress articulated that it is “the policy of the Congress” to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his or her authority. Section 101(b) also states that it is the policy of Congress that the States manage the construction grant program under this chapter and implement the permit programs under sections 402 and 404 of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251(b). Therefore, as part of the two-step rulemaking, the agencies will be considering the relationship of the CWA objective and policies, and in particular, the meaning and importance of section 101(b).
The 2015 rule did acknowledge the language contained in section 101(b) and the vital role states and tribes play in the implementation of the Act and the effort to meet the Act's stated objective.
The scope of CWA jurisdiction is an issue of great national importance and therefore the agencies will allow for robust deliberations on the ultimate regulation. While engaging in such deliberations, however, the agencies recognize the need to provide as an interim step for regulatory continuity and clarity for the many stakeholders affected by the definition of “waters of the United States.” The pre-CWR regulatory regime is in effect as a result of the Sixth Circuit's stay of the 2015 rule but that regime depends upon the pendency of the Sixth Circuit's order and could be altered at any time by factors beyond the control of the agencies. The Supreme Court's resolution of the question as to which courts have original jurisdiction over challenges to the 2015 rule could impact the Sixth Circuit's exercise of jurisdiction and its stay. If, for example, the Supreme Court were to decide that the Sixth Circuit lacks original jurisdiction over challenges to the 2015 rule, the Sixth Circuit case would be dismissed and its nationwide stay would expire, leading to inconsistencies, uncertainty, and confusion as to the regulatory regime that would be in effect pending substantive rulemaking under the Executive Order.
As noted previously, prior to the Sixth Circuit's stay order, the District Court for North Dakota had preliminarily enjoined the rule in 13 States (North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico). Therefore, if the Sixth Circuit's nationwide stay were to expire, the 2015
Adding to the confusion that could be caused if the Sixth Circuit's nationwide stay of the 2015 rule were to expire, there are multiple other district court cases pending on the 2015 rule, including several where challengers have filed motions for preliminary injunctions. These cases—and the pending preliminary injunction motions—would likely be reactivated if the Supreme Court were to determine that the Sixth Circuit lacks original jurisdiction over challenges to the 2015 rule. The proposed interim rule would establish a clear regulatory framework that would avoid the inconsistencies, uncertainty and confusion that would result from a Supreme Court ruling affecting the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction while the agencies reconsider the 2015 rule. It would ensure that, during this interim period, the scope of CWA jurisdiction will be administered exactly the way it is now, and as it was for many years prior to the promulgation of the 2015 rule. The agencies considered other approaches to providing stability while they work to finalize the revised definition, such as simply withdrawing or staying the Clean Water Rule, but did not identify any options that would do so more effectively and efficiently than this proposed rule would do. A stable regulatory foundation for the
1.
2.
The authority for this action is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251,
This proposed rule is the first step in a comprehensive, two-step process to review and revise the 2015 definition of “waters of the United States.” The agencies prepared an illustrative economic analysis to provide the public with information on the potential changes to the costs and benefits of various CWA programs that could result if there were a change in the number of positive jurisdictional determinations. The economic analysis is provided pursuant to the requirements of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 to provide information to the public. The 2015 CWR is used as a baseline in the analysis in order to provide information to the public on the estimated differential effects of restoring pre-2015 status quo in comparison to the 2015 CWR. However, as explained previously, the 2015 CWR has already been stayed by the Sixth Circuit, and this proposal would merely codify the legal status quo, not change current practice.
The proposed rule is a definitional rule that affects the scope of “waters of the United States.” This rule does not establish any regulatory requirements or directly mandate actions on its own. However, by changing the definition of “waters of the United States,” the proposed rule would change the waters where other regulatory requirements that affect regulated entities come into play, for example, the locations where regulated entities would be required to obtain certain types of permits. The consequence of a water being deemed non-jurisdictional is simply that CWA provisions no longer apply to that water. There are no avoided costs or forgone benefits if similar state regulations exist and continue to apply to that water. The agencies estimated that the 2015 rule would result in a small overall increase in positive jurisdictional determinations compared to those made under the prior regulation as currently implemented, and that there would be fewer waters within the scope of the CWA under the 2015 rule compared to the prior regulations. The agencies estimated the avoided costs and forgone benefits of repealing the 2015 rule. This analysis is contained in the
The agencies solicit comment as to whether it is desirable and appropriate to re-codify in regulation the
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
In addition, the agencies prepared an analysis of the potential avoided costs and forgone benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers 2050-0021 and 2050-0135 for the CWA section 311 program and 2040-0004 for the 402 program.
For the CWA section 404 regulatory program, the current OMB approval number for information requirements is maintained by the Corps (OMB approval number 0710-0003). However, there are no new approval or application processes required as a result of this rulemaking that necessitate a new Information Collection Request (ICR).
We certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this action would simply codify the legal
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. The definition of “waters of the United States” applies broadly to CWA programs. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and does not contain regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
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. Consistent with the agencies' policy to promote communications with state and local governments, the agencies have informed states and local governments about this proposed rulemaking.
The agencies will appropriately consult with States and local governments as a subsequent rulemaking makes changes to the longstanding definition of “waters of the United States.”
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule maintains the legal
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011), the agencies will appropriately consult with tribal officials during the development of a subsequent rulemaking that makes changes to the longstanding definition of “waters of the United States.” In fact, the agencies have already initiated the formal consultation process with respect to the subsequent rulemaking.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action do not present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This proposed rule does not involve technical standards.
This proposed rule maintains the legal
Pursuant to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) this proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Navigation, Water pollution control, Waterways.
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 33, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1344.
(a) The term
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section;
(6) The territorial seas;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
(b) The term
(c) The term
(d) The term
(e) The term
(f) The term
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3) and (b)(4) and 1361(a); E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR parts 1971-1975 Comp., p. 793.
(a) All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(b) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, and wetlands, the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(1) That are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;
(3) That are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as navigable waters under this section;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, including adjacent wetlands; and
(f) Wetlands adjacent to waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section: Provided, That waste treatment systems (other than cooling ponds meeting the criteria of this paragraph) are not waters of the United States;
Navigable waters do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
33 U.S.C. 1251
(1) All navigable waters of the United States, as defined in judicial decisions prior to passage of the 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA (Pub. L. 92-500), and tributaries of such waters;
(2) Interstate waters;
(3) Intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; and
(4) Intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams from which fish or shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce.
Secs. 311(b)(2)(A) and 501(a), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
(1) All waters which are presently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and including adjacent wetlands; the term
(2) Tributaries of navigable waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands;
(3) Interstate waters, including wetlands; and
(4) All other waters of the United States such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats and wetlands, the use, degradation or destruction of which affect interstate commerce including, but not limited to:
(i) Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which are utilized by interstate travelers for recreational or other purposes; and
(ii) Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate commerce; and
(iii) Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which are utilized for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Navigable waters do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
Secs. 311 and 501(a), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
(i)
(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, and wetlands, the use, degradation or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as navigable waters under this paragraph;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section, including adjacent wetlands; and
(6) Wetlands adjacent to waters identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section (“Wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally included playa lakes, swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, prairie river overflows, mudflats, and natural ponds):
Navigable waters do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate “wetlands;”
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, “wetlands,” sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(g) “Wetlands” adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition.
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. This exclusion applies only to manmade bodies of water which neither were originally created in waters of the United States (such as disposal area in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment of waters of the United States. [See Note 1 of this section.] Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
Secs. 404(b) and 501(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344(b) and 1361(a)).
The revision and additions read as follows:
(b) The term
(s) The term
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
(6) The territorial sea;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
(t) The term
33 U.S.C. 1344.
All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to us in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
All interstate waters including interstate wetlands.
All other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which would or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (g)(1)-(4) of this section;
The territorial sea; and
Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (q)(1)-(6) of this section.
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Act (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193.
(1) All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, and wetlands, the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters;
(i) That are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;
(iii) That are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as navigable waters under this section;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition, including adjacent wetlands; and
(6) Wetlands adjacent to waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this definition: Provided, that waste treatment systems (other than cooling ponds meeting the criteria of this paragraph) are not waters of the United States.
(7) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
(a) All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(b) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, and wetlands, the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(1) That are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; and
(3) That are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as navigable waters under this section;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition, including adjacent wetlands; and
(f) Wetlands adjacent to waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this definition: Provided, that waste treatment systems (other than cooling ponds meeting the criteria of this paragraph) are not waters of the United States.
(g) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
Secs. 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306 (b) and (c), 307 (b) and (c) and 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (the “Act”), 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c), 1316 (b) and (c), 1317 (b) and (c) and 1326(c); 86 Stat. 816
(l) The term
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of new task assignment for the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC); teleconference meeting.
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee (GLPAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking GLPAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 23, 2017, to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider GLPAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.
The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 23, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
Ms. Michelle Birchfield, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, telephone (202) 372-1533, or email
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to GLPAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. GLPAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Executive Order 13783 promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that unnecessarily encumber energy production.
When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about
GLPAC is tasked to:
Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter.
1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Committee charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast Guard from the parent Committee.
2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If the Committee recommends modification, please provide specific recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the extent to which risks to health or safety would likely increase.
a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of burden on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing administrative burdens on the industry.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. “Burden,” for the purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13783, means “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.”
b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of costs on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement), or are no longer necessary.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are ineffective.
iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how it could be modified.
c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections that the Committee believes have led to the elimination of jobs or inhibits job creation within a particular industry.
3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or parts thereof, recommended by the Committee should be described in sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the impact, cost, or burden, as applicable, for each recommendation. If the data is not readily available, the Committee should include information as to how such information can be obtained either by the Committee or directly by the Coast Guard.
All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Committee meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August 23, 2017, teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual listed in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for flame attenuation (FA) lines in the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
The EPA must receive written comments on or before August 28, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042, at
Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address:
This document proposes to take action on amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing. We have published a direct final rule to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN by revising the compliance dates for FA lines in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct portion of the direct final rule, we will withdraw that portion of the rule and it will not take effect. In this instance, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. In any subsequent final rule, the EPA intends to examine whether there is “good cause,” under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to designate the publication date of the final rule (based on the parallel proposal) as the effective date for implementation of the final rule.
If we receive adverse comment on a distinct provision of the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
The regulatory text for this proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1380. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
For a complete discussion of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Comments are due on or before August 28, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before September 25, 2017. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 13-39, by any of the following methods:
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Alex Espinoza, at (202) 418-0849,
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.
All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
1. We are committed to ensuring that long-distance calls to
2. Rural call completion problems manifest themselves in a number of ways. For example, a call may be significantly delayed, the called party's phone may never ring, or the caller may hear false ring tone or busy signals. These failures have significant public interest ramifications, causing rural businesses to lose customers, cutting families off from their relatives in rural areas, and potentially creating dangerous delays in public safety communications. While there appear to be multiple factors that cause rural call completion problems, one key factor is that a call to a rural area is often handled by numerous different providers in the call's path. Given the relatively high rates long-distance providers incur to terminate long-distance calls to rural carriers, long-distance providers have an incentive to reduce the per-minute cost of calls. As a result, there is greater incentive for the long-distance provider to hand off a call to an intermediate provider that is offering to deliver it cheaply—and potentially less incentive to ensure that calls to rural areas are actually completed properly.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. We believe that rural call completion is a continuing problem and that continued Commission focus on the issue is warranted. We continue to receive rural call completion complaints from consumers as well as rural carriers. At the same time, the declining
11. We propose to hold covered providers responsible for monitoring rural call completion performance, and particularly maintaining the accountability of their intermediate providers in the event of poor performance. We seek detailed comment below on this proposal and how best to implement it.
12. We believe that our proposal is an improvement upon our existing recording, retention, and reporting rules, and we seek comment on this view. Based on the
13. For purposes of any new rules, we propose to retain our existing definition of “covered provider” in Section 64.2101 of our rules, and we seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment generally on the form that any new covered provider requirements should take as well as on the proposal discussed below. In addition, we seek comment on any possible alternative approaches to new rules for covered providers. For the proposal below and any potential alternative, we seek comment on its effectiveness in ensuring call completion to rural areas, its costs and benefits, and its impact on smaller providers.
14. Based on industry best practices as developed by ATIS as well as on our experience in enforcing rural call completion practices, we propose to require covered providers to monitor the rural call completion performance of their intermediate providers and to hold them accountable for such performance. We seek comment generally on this approach and other additional or alternative approaches to achieving our objectives. We further seek comment on whether our proposal will facilitate the Commission's ability to enforce Sections 201, 202, and 217 of the Act.
15. We recognize that there are multiple different ways to implement our proposal to require covered providers to monitor the rural call completion performance of their intermediate providers and to hold them accountable for such performance. We seek comment on how best to do so. One possible approach, which is reflected in Appendix A, is a rule that, for each intermediate provider with which it contracts as of the effective date of the rule, a covered provider must (1) monitor the intermediate provider's performance in the completion of call attempts to rural incumbent LECs from subscriber lines for which the covered provider makes the initial long-distance call path choice; and (2) based on the results of such monitoring, hold the intermediate provider accountable for such performance, including by removing an intermediate provider from a particular route after sustained inadequate performance. We seek comment on this specific formulation and on potential alternatives. Additionally, we seek comment on whether we should clarify that we would not impose liability on covered providers that make a good-faith effort to comply with any new monitoring requirements and that hold intermediate providers accountable for problems identified through such monitoring.
16. In implementing this proposal, we seek to ensure that covered providers are adequately monitoring the performance of their intermediate providers in the delivery of calls to rural areas while also giving covered providers flexibility in how they do so. Our preference would be to define meaningful, clear outcomes or actions for a covered provider and then allow covered providers flexibility in how they operate their businesses to meet these objectives. Therefore, we seek comment on the necessity and value of
• Should we specify performance metrics or other factors that covered providers must meet and/or performance metrics they must use to monitor and assess the call completion performance of their intermediate providers or should we leave this to the discretion of covered providers?
• Should we specify the form and frequency of the required monitoring, and if so how? For example, is ongoing automated monitoring sufficient, or should we also require periodic analysis of the resulting data (and if we require the latter, should we specify the frequency of review, such as on a monthly or quarterly basis)?
• Should we, and if so how, clarify the scope of the required monitoring of intermediate providers? For example, if we were to adopt the specific formulation discussed above, should we clarify (1) whether it must be conducted on a rural OCN-by-OCN basis; (2) whether it must be conducted for all call attempts covered by our existing rules or whether sampling should be permitted; (3) whether it should include call attempts to not only rural incumbent LECs but also rural competitive LECs; and (4) whether it should also include call attempts to nonrural incumbent LECs in the aggregate?
• Should we tie the performance monitoring requirement to industry best practices, and if so which best practices? In particular, we note that some covered providers contractually bind their intermediate providers to follow certain industry best practices, which are documented in the ATIS Call Completion Handbook. These practices include (1) prohibiting “call looping,” a practice in which the intermediate provider hands off a call for completion to a provider that has previously handed off the call); (2) requiring intermediate providers to “crank back” or release a call back to the originating carrier, rather than simply dropping the call, upon failure to find a route; and (3) prohibiting intermediate providers from processing calls so as to “terminate and re-originate” them (
• We seek comment on whether and how we should clarify the circumstances in which a covered provider must hold one of its intermediate providers accountable for its rural call completion performance. For example, if we adopted the specific formulation discussed above, how should we define what constitutes “sustained inadequate performance” by an intermediate provider?
We seek comment on any other potential implementation issues associated with our proposal, including whether we should establish any exceptions to the proposed requirements. For example, are there instances where an exception would be needed for cases in which covered providers cannot remove an underperforming intermediate provider from a particular route because no other intermediate provider is available? In addition, we seek specific comment on the benefits and burdens of our proposal on smaller providers.
17. In addition, we seek comment on any contractual issues raised by our proposed monitoring requirement. Specifically, we propose to require covered providers to monitor the performance of the intermediate providers with which they contract as of the effective date of the requirement. How would existing contracts be affected by this proposal? For example, would removal of an intermediate provider from a particular route for sustained inadequate performance entail a breach of contract or would contractual change of law provisions cover such action? Additionally, is there a subset of intermediate carriers for which our proposal would not require monitoring because that subset contracts only with other intermediate carriers and not covered providers, and if so how does this impact the effectiveness of our proposal?
18. Further, we seek comment on how we can best ensure compliance with our proposed performance monitoring requirements. For example, is a certification or audit requirement needed to ensure compliance? Why or why not? If so, how should such a requirement be implemented (
19. We seek comment on any additional or alternative proposals for new rural call completion requirements for covered providers. For instance, should we require covered providers to follow some or all of the ATIS Call Completion Handbook best practices discussed above or any other industry best practices? Additionally, as an alternative to our proposal above, should we require covered providers to meet or exceed one or more numeric rural call completion performance targets or thresholds while giving them flexibility in how they do so? If so, what metric(s) should we use and what target(s) or threshold(s) should we establish? Should we require covered providers to monitor their own rural call completion performance and proactively investigate rural OCNs associated with poor performance (as evidenced by, for example, low call answer or completion rates, or repeated complaints by customers, rural LECs, or others)? Should covered providers be required to retain data on their rural call completion performance monitoring for a specified period of time? Should we require covered providers to certify that they conduct testing of new intermediate providers with whom they contract, and if so, how should that requirement be structured? Should we require covered providers to limit the number of intermediate providers that they utilize in the call path before the call reaches the terminating provider or terminating tandem, and if so, what should that number be? What are the implications of such a requirement on covered providers, intermediate providers, and consumers? Should we require covered providers to establish reasonable processes to timely investigate rural call completion complaints or other evidence of potential rural call completion problems? If such a requirement is necessary, what would be the elements of such processes? Should we require covered providers to provide and maintain updated information with the Commission on a point-of-contact within the company that is responsible for addressing rural call completion complaints (regardless of whether the complaint is from a customer of the covered provider), and should we make that contact information publicly available? For each of these potential requirements and any alternative, we seek comment on its effectiveness in addressing rural call completion problems, its costs and benefits, and its impact on smaller providers.
20. For purposes of any new requirements we adopt for covered providers, we seek comment on how to define relevant terms. As with the definition of “covered provider,” we propose to retain the existing definitions “intermediate provider,” “call attempt,” “long-distance voice service,” “initial long-distance call path choice,” and “affiliate” in Section 64.2101 of the Commission's rules to the extent that these terms are used in our final rules. We seek comment on this proposal as well as on whether and how we should define any other relevant terms.
21. We seek comment in particular on how we should define “rural” areas for purposes of any new covered provider requirements. Our existing definition of “rural OCN” is based on the statutory definition of “rural telephone company.” Does this definition accurately capture potential call completion problems to areas that should be viewed as “rural”? We seek comment on this issue and any potential alternatives for ensuring that our rules address call completion problems in “rural” areas. Further, if we decide to eliminate our existing recording, retention, and reporting requirements, should we ask NECA to continue publishing a list of rural and nonrural OCNs? Could and should this list be expanded to include rural competitive LECs? We seek comment on this issue and any alternative ways to ensure that covered providers can identify “rural” areas.
22. We seek comment on whether smaller providers should be exempted from any new requirements applicable to covered providers. In the
23. We believe that Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act provide sufficient legal authority for our proposed requirements for covered providers. Practices that lead to rural call completion problems may violate the prohibition against unjust and unreasonable practices in Sections 201(b), or may violate carriers' duty under Section 202(a) to refrain from unjust or unreasonable discrimination in practices, facilities, or services. In addition, we believe that with respect to carriers, Sections 218, 220(a), and 403 of the Act grant the Commission ample authority to (1) inquire into and keep itself apprised of carriers' business management practices; (2) obtain from carriers full and complete information necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties for which it was created; and (3) prescribe the form for these records and reports. Furthermore, we believe that Section 217 of the Act gives us authority to hold originating providers responsible for the acts, omissions, or failures of the intermediate providers with which they contract. We seek comment on these views and on any other sources of authority to address rural call completion issues. We seek comment on whether and the extent to which we have authority under Section 217 to hold originating providers responsible for the acts, omissions, or failures of intermediate providers in the call path other than those in a direct contracting relationship with the originating provider.
24. We believe the proposed requirements will help facilitate rural call completion and thereby ensure that all Americans in rural and nonrural areas receive the benefits of interconnection under Section 251(a) of the Act. As the Commission explained in the
25. Consistent with the Wireline Competition Bureau's recommendations in the
26. One potential approach is to retain but modify the recording, retention, and reporting rules. We seek comment on this alternative. If we should adopt this approach, how should we modify the existing requirements in light of the lessons learned in the
27. A second possible approach is to retain the recording and retention requirement but eliminate the reporting requirement. We seek comment on this alternative and its benefits and drawbacks. If we retain the recording and retention requirement, how, if at all, should we modify those requirements?
28. A third potential approach is to eliminate the recording, retention, and reporting requirements. Would this alternative, which is reflected in Appendix A, be preferable to the other approaches discussed above? For example, in the
29. We seek comment generally on how we should proceed with our existing Safe Harbor rule and how any Safe Harbor regime should be structured going forward. Given that problems with routing calls to rural areas often arise when multiple intermediate providers are involved in transmitting a call, we recognize the benefits of creating strong incentives for covered providers to use fewer intermediate providers in the call path and seek comment on the best means to create such incentives. If we were to retain any recording, retention, and reporting rules, should we retain or modify our existing Safe Harbor rule? In asking this question, we note that while the Safe Harbor incentivizes covered providers to adopt positive rural call completion practices, it also effectively prevents the Commission from collecting data from some of the largest covered providers.
30. If we adopt any version of the performance monitoring requirements proposed in Section III.A above, should we reduce the monitoring and certification or other obligations of covered providers that meet certain qualifications? If so, how should we reduce these obligations?
31. In any Safe Harbor regime, should we retain the three qualification requirements of our existing Safe Harbor rule? Those are that (1) the covered provider must restrict by contract any intermediate provider to which a call is directed from permitting more than one additional intermediate provider in the call path before the call reaches the terminating provider or terminating tandem; (2) any nondisclosure agreement with an intermediate provider must permit the covered provider to reveal the identity of the intermediate provider and any additional intermediate provider to the Commission and to the rural incumbent LEC(s) whose incoming long-distance calls are affected by the intermediate provider's performance; and (3) the covered provider must have a process in place to monitor the performance of its intermediate providers.
32. If we retain the qualification requirements in our existing Safe Harbor rule, should they be modified or clarified and if so, how? For example, Verizon seeks clarifications that (1) incidental or
33. We seek comment on any additional measures we should take to address rural call completion problems. For example, should we adopt rules formally codifying our existing prohibitions on blocking, choking, reducing, or restricting traffic? We seek comment on our legal authority to adopt such rules, including whether there is any basis to adopt such rules for intrastate traffic. We also seek comment on what, if any, exceptions to such rules would need to be established.
34. We also seek comment on whether we should impose any requirements designed to address rural call completion issues on terminating providers or a subset thereof (
35. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
36. In this
37. Although we believe that we should continue to take action to address rural call completion problems, we also question the ongoing utility of our existing recording, retention, and reporting rules. In adopting those rules in the
38. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the
39. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rule revisions, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service, and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59. The
60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
61. The
62. The
63. None.
64. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
65. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and actions considered in this
66. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
67. For further information about this proceeding, please contact Alex Espinoza, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Room 5-C211, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-0849 or
68. Accordingly,
69.
Miscellaneous rules relating to common carriers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
For each intermediate provider with which it contracts, a covered provider shall:
(a) Monitor the intermediate provider's performance in the completion of call attempts to rural incumbent LECs from subscriber lines for which the covered provider makes the initial long-distance call path choice; and
(b) Based on the results of such monitoring, hold the intermediate provider accountable for such performance, including by removing the intermediate provider from a particular route after sustained inadequate performance.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 28, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden 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 through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 28, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before August 16, 2017. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.
Docket Number: 17-009. Applicant: UChicago Argonne, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439-4873. Instrument: Electron Beams Position Processors. Manufacturer: Instrumentation Technologies, Slovenia. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to measure the precise position of the Advanced Photon Source (APS) storage ring electron beam with resolution of 50 to 100 nanometers from DC to 1000 kHz. It can also turn by turn position to the 1 micrometer level for fast 271 kHz (the turn by turn rate) beam position measurement, without which the required vertical beam stability of 400 nm will not be met. The instrument also has a daisy chain capability to accumulate and send all data from several bpm processors to the fast-orbit-feedback processor, without which data cannot be sent at 32 bpms to the local fast-orbit feedback processors at the same time. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 4, 2017.
Docket Number: 17-010. Applicant: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 801 Leroy Place, Socorro, NM 87801. Instrument: DelayLine Trolley #2 (DLT2). Manufacturer: University of Cambridge/Cavendish Lab, United Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument will be flexure-mounted and voice-coil actuated on a motorized wheeled carriage inside each delay line pipe of the Magdalena Ridge Observatory Interferometer. The instrument's unique specifications include a wavelength of operation that covers both the visible and near infrared, between 600 nm and 2400 nm, and a limiting group-delay tracking limiting magnitude of H=14 to allow observations of extragalactic targets while tracking on the science object rather than a nearby reference star. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 1, 2017.
Docket Number: 17-011. Applicant: William Marsh Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005. Instrument: 3D Laser Lithography System. Manufacturer: Nanoscribe GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to prepare materials for investigations of the mechanical, optical, electronic, and thermal properties of substrates for cell culture growth to better understand cancer propagation and tumors,
Docket Number: 17-012. Applicant: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, M/S 971-PROC, Berkeley, CA 94720. Instrument: Custom undulator magnetic system mfg'd. to LBNL spec. for an accelerator research facility; (1) 1st article & (21) production units. Manufacturer: Vacuumschmelze GmbH & Co. KG, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used as a core component of a free-electron-laser which produces x-rays for scientific discovery. To reach sufficiently high magnetic field values (1.3 Tesla) the instrument requires magnets with maximum field energy and poles with the highest saturation fields. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 26, 2017.
Docket Number: 17-013. Applicant: William March Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005. Instrument: Professional Lab-Device electrospraying/electrospinning Unit V2.0. Manufacturer: Yflow Nanotechnology Solutions, Spain. Intended Use: The instrument will be used to prepare samples and materials for experiments. The electrospinning and electrospraying capabilities of this instrument will allow studies of the mechanical, biodegradation, optical, architectural, drug elution, biocompatibility, and cell metabolism among other such properties as materials for basic science and engineering research. The instrument is unique in its capabilities to control climate, jet diameter, micro-droplet production, fibered core-shell capsule production, core-shell capsules, and co/multi-axial designs. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: May 23, 2017.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from Taiwan are being, or are 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. For information on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice.
Applicable July 27, 2017.
Jun Jack Zhao or Kathryn Wallace, 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) 482-1396 or (202) 482-6251, respectively.
On March 7, 2017, the Department published the
The scope of the investigation covers rebar from Taiwan. The Department did not receive any scope comments and has not updated the scope of the investigation since the
The issues raised in the case briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties and responded to by the Department in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached at Appendix II to this notice.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), during April 2017, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by Power Steel for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.
In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available. As discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations since the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, the Department calculated a dumping margin for the individually investigated exporters/producers of the subject merchandise. Consistent with sections 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated “all-others” rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for individually investigated exporters and producers, excluding any margins that are zero or
Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Lo-Toun is based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act, we have not utilized Lo-Toun's rate in order to calculate the all-others rate. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5), we utilized the remaining rate, which is neither zero or
Pursuant to section 735 of the Act, the Department determines the estimated weighted-average dumping margins to be:
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose the calculations performed within five days of any public announcement of this notice.
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 rebar from Taiwan, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 7, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. 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 rebar from Taiwan no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an AD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice serves as the only 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/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 violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar markings (
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
Docket Number: 16-023. Applicant: Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 16796-97, April 6, 2017.
Docket Number: 16-024. Applicant: The Hormel Institute, Austin, MN 55912. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 23191, May 22, 2017.
Docket Number: 16-025. Applicant: The Hormel Institute, Austin, MN 55912. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 82 FR 23191, May 22, 2017.
Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 25, 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 and instructions should be directed to Kurt Iverson, (907) 586-7228 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
For a person to participate in Federal fisheries, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires a Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP), a Federal Processor Permit (FPP), or an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP). NMFS Alaska Region created a set of commercial fishing permits that operators of vessels and managers of processors must have on board or on site when fishing, receiving, buying, or processing groundfish and non-groundfish species. The permit information provides harvest gear types; descriptions of vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors; and expected fishery activity levels. These
Section 303(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically recognizes the need for permit issuance. The requirement of a permit for marine resource users is one of the regulatory steps taken to carry out conservation and management objectives. The issuance of a permit is an essential ingredient in the management of fishery resources needed for identification of the participants, expected activity levels, and for regulatory compliance (
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include mail and facsimile transmission.
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.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 25, 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 and instructions should be directed to Stephanie Warpinski, (907) 586-7228 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
On October 21, 1998, the President signed into law The American Fisheries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1851 (AFA). The AFA authorizes the formation of fishery cooperatives in all sectors of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) pollock fishery, grants antitrust exemptions to cooperatives in the mothership sector, and imposes operational limits on fishery cooperatives in the BSAI pollock fishery. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issues a single pollock allocation to each cooperative, and the cooperative may make sub-allocations of pollock to each individual vessel owner in the cooperative.
With respect to the fisheries off Alaska, the AFA Program is a suite of management measures that fall into four general regulatory categories:
• Limit access into the fishing and processing sectors of the BSAI pollock fishery and that allocate pollock to such sectors (50 CFR 679.64).
• Govern the formation and operation of fishery cooperatives in the BSAI pollock fishery, including filing of cooperative contracts (50 CFR 679.61 and 679.62).
• Protection of other fisheries from spillover effects from the AFA (50 CFR 679.64).
• Govern catch measurement and monitoring in the BSAI pollock fishery, including filing of annual reports and completing and submitting inshore catcher vessel pollock cooperative catch reports (50 CFR 679.63).
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
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.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 25, 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 and instructions should be directed to Kurt Iverson, (907) 586-7228 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
The License Limitation Program (LLP) restricts access to the commercial groundfish fisheries, commercial crab fisheries, and commercial scallop fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska except for certain areas where alternative programs exist. The intended effect of the LLP is to limit the number of participants and reduce fishing capacity in fisheries off Alaska.
For a vessel designated on an LLP license, the LLP license authorizes the type of fishing gear that may be used by the vessel, the maximum size of the vessel, an area endorsement, and whether the vessel may catch and process fish at sea or if it is limited to delivering catch without at-sea processing. LLP licenses that allow vessels to catch and process at-sea are assigned a catcher/processor endorsement. LLP licenses specify the maximum length overall (MLOA) of the vessel to which that LLP license may be assigned. The LLP may also include a species endorsement for Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA).
An LLP license is required for vessels participating in directed fishing for LLP groundfish species in the BSAI or GOA, or fishing in any BSAI LLP crab fisheries. An LLP license is also required for any vessel deployed in scallop fisheries in Federal waters off Alaska (except for some diving operations).
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal are mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
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.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 25, 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 and instructions should be directed to Stephanie Warpinski, (907) 586-7228 or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
The Crab Rationalization Program (CRP) allocates Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab resources among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities through a limited access system that balances the interests of these groups who depend on these fisheries.
The Crab Rationalization Program Arbitration System (CRPAS) is a series of steps that harvesters and processors can use to negotiate delivery and price contracts. The Arbitration System allows unaffiliated Class A individual fishing quota holders to initiate an arbitration proceeding in the event of a dispute to allow an independent third party to provide a review of harvester and processor negotiation positions and provide an independent and binding resolution to issues under dispute. To use the arbitration system, a harvester must commit deliveries to a processor and initiate a binding arbitration proceeding in advance of the season opening. The Arbitration System is designed to minimize antitrust risks for crab harvesters and processors and is intended to ensure that a reasonable price is paid for all landings.
Methods of submittal include email, mail, and facsimile transmission.
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
We, NMFS, announce receipt of a permit application (20571) to enhance the propagation and survival of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Under permit application 20571, the Service is requesting to continue, for the next five years, hatchery and monitoring activities associated with the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) and the SJRRP's Salmon Conservation and Research Program. These activities of the SJRRP were previously permitted under permits 14868 and 17781. Under permit application 20571 the Service proposes to collect Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon from Butte Creek to use as broodstock, which was not authorized by the previous permits. As part of this permit application, the Service has submitted an HGMP as an attachment to the application. This notice advises the public that the permit application and associated HGMP are available for review and comment, prior to a determination by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the issuance of the permit. The permit application, and attached HGMP, may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the application should be submitted to the California Central Valley Office, NMFS, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 5-100, Sacramento, CA 95814. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 916-930-3629, or by email to
Jeff Abrams, Sacramento, CA (ph.: 916-930-3614; Fax: 916-930-3629; email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Enhancement permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The Service has applied for an enhancement permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for a period of five years that would allow take of multiple life stages of CV spring-run Chinook salmon and CCV steelhead. Hatchery activities included in the permit application would result in take of CV spring-run Chinook salmon only. Hatchery activities would be permitted pursuant to the draft final HGMP, which is attached to the permit application. Monitoring and in-river research activities, also included in the application, could result in take of both CV spring-run Chinook salmon and CCV steelhead.
The activities would occur under the auspices of the SJRRP and are related to the reintroduction of salmonids to the San Joaquin River (SJR). This Service has previously conducted reintroduction activities under 10(a)(1)(A) permits 14868 and 17781. Permit 14868, issued October 11, 2012, authorized collection of broodstock from Feather River Hatchery (FRFH) for the Interim Salmon Conservation and Research Facility (Interim Facility) and Salmon Conservation and Research Facility (SCARF), which is currently under construction. Permit 17781, issued March 21, 2014, authorized collections from FRFH for direct translocation to the SJR, the release of broodstock offspring and ancillary broodstock to the SJR, trap and haul of returning adults, and population monitoring activities. The Service is proposing to continue with previously authorized work in addition to some new activities to further reintroduction efforts.
Under the application for Permit 20571, proposed take activities for CV spring-Run Chinook salmon include: (1) Broodstock collection, (2) broodstock rearing and spawning, (3) broodstock offspring (hatchery origin) and ancillary broodstock releases, (4) release of translocated hatchery origin juveniles, and (5) trap and haul of juveniles and returning adults. Activities also include restoration area monitoring and in-river research, which could involve take of both CV spring-run Chinook salmon and CCV steelhead.
Broodstock collections, as with all hatchery activities, would occur pursuant to the attached HGMP, and include potential collections from Butte Creek (juvenile life stage), FRFH (juvenile and/or egg life stage), or/and the SJR (adult, juvenile, and/or egg life stage). The purpose of collecting individuals from Butte Creek is to help to create an SJRRP broodstock, and self-sustaining population, that is a robust representation of the genetic and phenotypic diversity of the species. As described in the HGMP, collection would be in accordance with the SJRRP genetic management goal to promote and protect genetic diversity within the reestablishing population while safeguarding against negative genetic effects to out-of-basin source and non-target populations. Details for collection by source and life stage, including quarantine and pathology testing protocols, are included in the permit application. Hatchery-produced fish and ancillary broodstock may be released at various life stages based on production targets, hatchery capacity, river conditions, and program needs. Population monitoring and evaluation may include adult monitoring by video, acoustic tracking, visual surveys, and redd and spawning surveys; juvenile monitoring may consist of various outmigrant traps, and fry emergence monitoring. For a more detailed discussion of the monitoring activities, please see the permit application package.
NMFS invites the public to comment on the permit application and associated HGMP during a 30 day public comment period beginning on the date of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1529(c)). All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review and comment on these documents.
NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day public comment period and after NMFS has fully considered all relevant comments received. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
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 28, 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 either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0075.
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0075.
•
•
•
Gregory Scopino, Special Counsel, 202-418-5175, email:
As discussed above, the rules establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are mandated by section 4s(l) of the CEA, which states that SDs and MSPs must notify their counterparties of the right to have their initial margin segregated and to maintain the confirmations and elections related to such notices as business records. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements are necessary to implement the objectives of section 4s(1). For example, the information received by uncleared swap counterparties pursuant to § 23.701 of the Commission's regulations would alert counterparties to their statutory right, if they so choose, to have funds or property used as margin in uncleared swaps transactions with SDs and MSPs kept segregated from the property of the SD or MSP. Likewise, the information provided would further alert counterparties of the need to request such segregation if they wish to exercise this right. Similarly, the information received by uncleared swap counterparties pursuant to § 23.704 would be used to confirm that the back office procedures followed by a SD or MSP with whom they are dealing comply with the agreement of the parties. On May 12, 2017, the Commission published in the
44 U.S.C. 3501
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
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 28, 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 either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0091.
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0091.
•
•
•
Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, 202-418-5496, email:
Section 22.2(g) requires each FCM with Cleared Swaps Customer Accounts
The Commission believes that the information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulations in §§ 22.2(g), 22.5(a), 22.11, 22.12, 22.16, and 22.17 are essential (i) to ensuring that FCMs and DCOs develop and maintain adequate customer protections and procedures over Cleared Swap Customer funds as required by the CEA, and Commission regulations, and (ii) to the effective evaluation of these registrants' actual compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations. On April 24, 2017, the Commission published in the
44 U.S.C. 3501
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
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 16-84 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS) and accessories; Defense Advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver (DAGR) equipment and accessories; Miltope laptops and accessories; Medium Tactical Vehicles FMTV M1092 5-ton trucks/chassis with support and accessories; software support; support equipment; classroom simulators; government furnished equipment; technical manuals and publications; essential spares and repair parts; consumables; live fire exercise and ammunition; tools and test equipment; training; transportation; U.S. Government technical support and logistic support; contractor technical support; repair and return support; quality assurance teams; in-country
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested a possible sale of twenty-six (26) AN/TPQ-53(V) Radar Systems to include Solid State Phased Array Radar with KN-4083 Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) enhanced Land/Sea Inertial Navigation System (INS) and automatic leveling system; Eight hundred and forty (840), M931, 120mm Projectiles with M781 fuzes (for live fire exercise); Two thousand, two hundred and forty (2,240), M107, 155MM Projectiles with M557 fuzes (for live fire exercise); Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS) and accessories; Defense Advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver (DAGR) equipment and accessories; Miltope laptops and accessories; Medium Tactical Vehicles FMTV M1092 5-ton trucks/chassis with support and accessories; software support; support equipment; classroom simulators; government furnished equipment; technical manuals and publications; essential spares and repair parts; consumables; live fire exercise and ammunition; tools and test equipment; training; transportation; U.S. Government technical support and logistic support; contractor technical support; repair and return support; quality assurance teams; in-country Field Service Representative (FSR) and other associated equipment and services. The total estimated program cost is $662 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be a leading contributor of political stability and economic growth in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia intends to use these radars to support its border security requirements and modernize its armed forces with a more current capability to locate and counter the source of incoming ballistic artillery, rockets, and mortars. This will contribute to Saudi Arabia's goal to update its military capability while further enhancing greater interoperability among Saudi Arabia, the United States and other allies. Saudi Arabia 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 Lockheed Martin Corporation, Liverpool, New York, is the principal contractor for the AN/TPQ-53 (V) Radars. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a period of four (4) months for in- processing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training, as well as providing the support of two in-country FSRs for two years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of the proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AN/TPQ-53(V) radar system is a highly mobile radar that automatically detects, classifies, tracks, and locates the point of origin of projectiles fired from mortar, artillery and rocket systems with sufficient accuracy for first round fire for effect. It mitigates close combat radar coverage gaps and replaces the AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Radars; fully supporting Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), Division Artilleries (DIVARTYs), and Field Artillery (FA) Brigades. Designed to be transported by ship, trucks, train, or aircraft, it is capable of deploying as part of the counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar system of systems to provide a sense and warn capability for fixed and semi-fixed sites. The AN/TPQ-53(V) provides a net ready system with increased range and accuracy throughout a 90 degree search sector (stare mode) as well as 360-degree coverage (rotating).
a. The Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) hardware design of the AN/TPQ-53(V) is UNCLASSIFIED. Foreign source systems of similar design and capability are available in advanced industrial nations such as Sweden and Israel.
b. The AN/TPQ-53(V) software gives it an enhanced capability in terms of target detection and classification in an Electronic Countermeasure (ECM) environment. Release of detailed knowledge of the software code or test data could aid an adversary trying to identify ways of countering the detection capabilities of the AN/TPQ-53(V) or improve the performance of their own radar systems. Although the detection, classification technology, and concept used in the AN/TPQ-53(V) has been utilized for more than a decade, the ability to incorporate such technology on a solid state air cooled radar would be a major technological improvement. The software is UNCLASSIFIED. The system is classified SECRET when employed in a theater of operations.
c. The Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) is a tactical radio providing secure jam-resistant voice and data communications of command, control, targeting, and technical information for the AN/TPQ-53(V) radar system. The spread-spectrum frequency hopping Electronic Counter-Counter Measures (ECCM) technology resident in the radio is sensitive but UNCLASSIFIED. While sensitive, the frequency-hopping algorithms used to generate the ECCM waveform are unique to the country of ownership and cannot be manipulated by potential adversaries for use or interference with other countries possessing SINCGARS technology. Should a potential adversary come into possession of one of these radios, they would have the potential to intercept operational command, control, and targeting information. This potential problem is mitigated by the fact that the customer can secure information passed over the radio network using a commercial grade security capability equivalent to an AES 256-bit encryption system whose keys are controlled by the customer country.
d. The Defense Advanced Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver (DAGR) is a handheld GPS location device with map background displaying the user's location. Unlike commercial grade GPS receivers capable of receiving Standard Positioning Signals (SPS) from GPS satellites, the DAGR is capable of receiving Precise Positioning Signals (PPS). PPS satellite signals provide significantly more accurate location data than do SPS signals. This capability within DAGR is possible due to the Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM). The SAASM is an
e. The same SAASM capabilities resident in the DAGR are also resident in the AN/TPQ-53(V) KN-4083 Inertial Navigation System (INS). The KN-4083 is a SAASM enhanced INS capability with a 3-axis Monolithic Ring Laser Gyro allowing extremely accurate location as well as 3-axis accelerometer to provide angular information regarding the radar position (i.e. pitch, roll, and azimuth data). While inertial navigation and accelerometer capabilities are well-known, the SAASM capability within the system makes it sensitive but UNCLASSIFIED. As with the DAGR, the US Air Force can cut off access to PPS signals and anti-spoofing capabilities, minimizing impacts should a potential adversary obtain the system.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific radar hardware and software elements, the information could be used to identify ways of countering the detection capabilities of the AN/TPQ-53(V) Radar System or improve the performance of their radar systems. Testing and identification of methods to defeat the AN/TPQ-53(V) ECCM capabilities would lead to improvements in the overall effectiveness of an adversary's system and improve their survivability.
3. A determination has been made that Saudi Arabia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the 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.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
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 17-40 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case NE-B-WGC for Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) for the Netherlands' AH-64D Apache helicopters, was below the congressional notification threshold at $8.2M (all non-MDE) and included a total of thirty-three (33) AN/AVR-2B laser detecting sets and communications, logistics and support equipment. The Netherlands has requested the case be amended to include the Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS). This amendment, which will add $30M of MDE and $20M of non-MDE, will push the current case above the congressional notification threshold, requiring notification of the entire case before the amendment can be offered.
Thirty-two (32) AN/AAR-57A(V)7 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS)
Thirty-three (33) AN/AVR-2B laser detecting sets, mission equipment, hardware and services required to implement customer unique post modifications, communications and navigation equipment, special tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, technical data, publications, MWO/ECP, technical assistance, and training, and other related elements of logistics and program support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Netherlands has requested the possible sale of thirty-two (32) AN/AAR-57A(V)7 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS). This would be in addition to the thirty-three (33) AN/AVR-2B laser detecting sets with various support elements included in an earlier FMS case valued at $8.2M. Also included in the amended FMS case would be mission equipment, hardware and services required to implement customer unique post modifications, communication and navigation equipment, special tools and test equipment, ground support equipment,
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the security of the Netherlands which has been, and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist the Netherlands to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The proposed sale will improve the Netherlands' capability to meet current and future threats and will be employed on the Netherlands' AH-64D Apache helicopters. The Netherlands will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense, deter regional threats, and provide direct support to coalition and security cooperation operations. The Netherlands will have no difficulty absorbing these systems into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of these systems will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be BAE Systems, Nashua, NH. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government personnel or contractor representatives to the Netherlands.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AN/AAR-57A(V)7 CMWS is the detection component of the suite of countermeasures designed to increase survivability of current generation combat aircraft and specialized special operations aircraft against the threat posed by infrared guided missiles.
2. The KIV-77, is a Common Crypto Applique for Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) that provides Mode 4/5 capability. The KIV-77 can be removed from the host and stored as an UNCLASSIFIED Controlled Cryptographic Item (CCI).
3. A determination has been made that the Government of the Netherlands can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary to the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the policy justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of the Netherlands.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
EIA has submitted an information collection request to OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension with changes of its Petroleum Marketing Program, OMB Control Number 1905-0174. The Petroleum Marketing Program collects and publishes data on the nature, structure, and efficiency of petroleum markets at national, regional, and state levels. Through integration of the program's ten surveys, EIA monitors petroleum volumes and prices as the commodity moves through various stages such as the importation of raw material, physical and financial transfer of material off extraction sites, refinement to finished products, transfer/distribution from refiners to retail outlets, and sales to ultimate consumers.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 28, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.
Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. And to Ms. Tammy Heppner, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration, EI-25, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585,
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Tammy Heppner,
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
These data are published by EIA on its Web site,
EIA is replacing “North Dakota Sweet” crude stream with “North Dakota Bakken” crude stream. This is due to increased crude oil production of the Bakken crude steam, and will provide accurate price estimates for the domestic crude stream. “North Dakota Sweet” purchase information will continue to be collected in the “Other North Dakota,” category.
EIA is adding annual sales volumes of residential heating oil for statistical estimation purposes. The addition of the annual heating oil sales volumes improves the accuracy of price estimates because it provides a more accurate method to calculate a weighted average point-in-time price.
EIA is collecting annual sales volumes of motor gasoline of regular, mid, and premium grades on a triennial basis. The survey will collect this information from corporate offices of suppliers of whole sale and retail gasoline, hypermarkets, and individual station owners. EIA will use annual sales volumes of motor gasoline to determine the measure of size and weights for the outlets sampled. EIA is also updating its frame of retail gasoline outlets and reselecting a sample of retail outlets utilizing a new sample design. The new sample will replace the current sample that reports on Form EIA-878.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S. C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for comments.
EIA, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend (with changes) for three years with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Form GC-859
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 25, 2017. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to Marta Gospodarczyk, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis, EI-34, Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Marta Gospodarczyk at the contact information given above. Form GC-859 is available on the internet at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Form GC-859
Data collected from the survey are utilized by personnel from DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM), and the national laboratories to meet their research objectives of developing a range of options and supporting analyses that facilitate informed choices about how best to manage spent nuclear fuel (SNF).
• Collection of fuel manufacturer and lattice size used in Section C.1.1 of the 2013 GC-859 will be replaced by fuel assembly type codes in Section C.1.3. Fuel assembly type codes were last collected in the 2003 RW-859. Selection boxes were added to this section to reduce reporting burden. Respondents may mark the fuel assembly type code based on the reactor design, previously used fuel types, range of assembly identification numbers, and initial cycle in core. Identification of fuel assembly type provides significantly more information to analyze the spent fuel.
• Cumulative cycle burnup for each assembly is added to Section C.1.2 of the survey. Respondents may voluntarily report this data. Assembly
• Section C.1.4 is added to the survey to collect data on all discharged fuel that is shipped or transferred to other storage sites (since January 1, 2003). This information was last collected in the 2003 using Form RW-859 and allows the tracking of all spent nuclear fuel discharged by commercial reactors, regardless of current ownership or transit status.
• Section C.2 `Projected Assembly Discharges' is deleted since this data is no longer needed for analysis.
• Section C.3.3.1 requests information for consolidated, reconstituted, reconstructed fuel assemblies. A drop-down menu was created with these three choices of fuel assemblies.
• A note is added in Section D.3.2 `Multi-Assembly Canisters/Casks Inventory' to capture deviations from standard operating procedures related to drying, backfilling, leak testing, or pad transfer processes.
• Dry cask loading pattern maps with orientation details are added to Section D.3.3 of the survey. For each canister/cask model, respondents provide or reference a loading map that clearly indicates identifiers for basket cell locations relative to fixed drain and vent port locations. For systems stored horizontally, the map indicates which direction is up when placed in a horizontal storage module. The dry cask loading pattern data facilitates detailed as-loaded analyses and enables the quantification of realistic safety margins and conditions.
• Section E.2 `Non-fuel Components Integral to an Assembly' is deleted and the data on non-fuel components integral to an assembly should be reported in Section C.1.1.
• Schedule G is deleted. This schedule was used to collect comments. It is easier for respondents to provide comments when completing a schedule so the new form will collect comments after each section.
• A copy of Standard Contract (10 CFR 961.11) Appendix E
• The following terms have either been added or updated to match the definition prescribed by the Standard Contract; Canister, DOE Facility, Failed Fuel, Multi-Assembly Canister/Cask, Non-fuel Component Identifier, Non-standard Fuel and Reconstructed Assembly.
• DOE proposes to use Form GC-859 to collect information once every three years. Reporting once every three years reduces respondent burden by permitting all new data for the multiyear period to be reported in one report.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the EPA Registration Number of interest as shown in the body of this document by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of open meeting.
The EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold a public meeting on August 22-23, 2017. EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice and recommendations to EPA on creative approaches to funding environmental programs, projects, and activities.
The purpose of this meeting is to hear from informed speakers on environmental finance issues, proposed legislation, and EPA priorities; to discuss activities, progress, and preliminary recommendations with regard to current EFAB work projects; and to consider requests for assistance from EPA program offices. Environmental finance discussions and presentations are expected on, but not limited to, the following topics: Decentralized wastewater systems; lead risk reduction; public-private partnerships; domestic recycling programs; water infrastructure financing and environmental justice; water quality restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; Rural Alaska Waste Backhaul Service Program; and drinking water and clean water state revolving fund (SRF) funding to address lead fixture replacement projects. The meeting is open to the public; however, seating is limited. All members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register, in advance, no later than Monday, August 7, 2017.
The full board meeting will be held Tuesday, August 22, 2017 from 1:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, August 23, 2017 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Marriott Kansas City Overland Park, 10800 Metcalf Avenue, Overland Park, KS 66210.
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a disability, please contact Sandra Williams at (202) 564-4999 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0141, is available at
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period from May 1, 2017 to May 31, 2017.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a) notice and make one of the following specific findings:
• The chemical substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
• The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance or significant new use;
• The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
• The chemical substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance; or
• The chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant under the conditions of use. The term “conditions of use” is defined in TSCA section 3 to mean “the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
• EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.
• Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Web site link to EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement with Jim Schnieders, in his capacity as Trustee of the Irma King Trust, to resolve the trust's civil liability for response costs related to the San Fernando Valley Area 2 Superfund Site (the Site). EPA enters into the settlement pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA. The settlement requires the Irma King Trust to pay $30,000 to resolve its liability pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA for past and future response costs that EPA has incurred or will incur at the Site. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this Notice in the
Pursuant to Section 122(i) of CERCLA, EPA will receive written comments relating to this proposed settlement for thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this Notice in the
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Tessa Berman, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, ORC-3, San Francisco, CA 94105, telephone number 415-972-3472. Comments should reference 525 South Flower Street, Burbank, California and should be addressed to Ms. Berman at the above address.
Tessa Berman, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3472; fax: (417) 947-3570; email:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before September 25, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email:
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
An International Signaling Point Code (ISPC) is a unique, seven-digit code synonymously used to identify the signaling network of each international carrier. The ISPC has a unique format that is used at the international level for signaling message routing and identification of signaling points. The Commission receives ISPC applications from international carriers on the electronic, Internet-based International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). After receipt of the ISPC application, the Commission assigns the ISPC code to each applicant (international carrier) free of charge on a first-come, first-served basis. The collection of this information is required to assign a unique identification code to each international carrier and to facilitate communication among international carriers by their use of the ISPC code on the shared signaling network. The Commission informs the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) of its assignment of ISPCs to international carriers on an ongoing basis.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting to discuss progress on and issues involving its work program.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017, 12:30 p.m. to 4 p.m., Washington, DC.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, 202-418-0807;
At the September 19th meeting, the FCC Technological Advisory Council will discuss progress on and issues involving its work program agreed to at its initial meeting on June 8, 2017. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before August 28, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
FCC Form 620, New Tower (NT) Submission Packet is to be completed by or on behalf of applicants to construct new antenna support structures by or for the use of licensees of the FCC. The form is to be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) or to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (“THPO”), as appropriate, and the Commission before any construction or other installation activities on the site begins. Failure to provide the form and complete the review process under section 106 of the NHPA prior to beginning construction may violate section 110(k) of the NHPA and the Commission's rules.
FCC Form 621, Collocation (CO) Submission Packet is to be completed by or on behalf of applicants who wish to collocate an antenna or antennas on an existing communications tower or non-tower structure by or for the use of licensees of the FCC. The form is to be submitted to the State historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) or to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (“THPO”), as appropriate, and the Commission before any construction or other installation activities on the site begins. Failure to provide the form and complete the review process under section 106 of the NHPA prior to beginning construction or other installation activities may violate section 110(k) of the NHPA and the Commission's rules.
The Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) is used by or on behalf of Applicants proposing to construct new antenna support structures, and some collocations, to ensure that Tribal Nations have the requisite opportunity to participate in review prior to construction. To facilitate this coordination, Tribal Nations have designated areas of geographic preference, and they receive automated notifications based on the site coordinates provided in the filing. Applicants complete TCNS before filing a 620 or 621 and all the relevant data is pre-populated on the 620 and 621 when the forms are filed electronically.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, 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 the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On May 17, 2017, the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to renew the information collections described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request
Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2017.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, (202-898-3767), Counsel, MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
1.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall increase in burden hours is a result of an increase in the number of Small Banks electing to voluntarily respond in certain categories. The increase is also, in small part, due to an adjustment in the agency's estimate of the time required to submit strategic plan applications from 275 hours per respondent to 400 hours per respondent.
2.
There is no change in the method or substance of this information collection. There has been a net increase in the estimated total annual burden primarily because of an upward adjustment in the agency's estimate of the number of consumers at FDIC-supervised institutions that elect to opt-out of affiliate marketing information sharing. The increase in burden due to the adjustment in the estimated number of consumers affected was offset by the fact that most banks have completed the implementation phase of the information collection; the estimated ongoing time per response for most affected institutions decreasing from 18 hours at implementation to 2 hours ongoing.
3.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. At present no FDIC-supervised institution is engaging in activities that would make them subject to the information collection requirements. FDIC originally estimated that 3 institutions would be impacted by the rule. The agency is reducing the estimated number of respondents to one (1) as a placeholder in case an institution elects to engage in covered activities in the future. There has been no change in the frequency of response or in the estimated number of hours required to respond. Because of the reduction in the estimated number of respondents from three (3) to one (1), the estimated annual burden has decreased.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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 23, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 11, 2017.
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for Supplemental Evidence and Data Submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review of
Submission Deadline on or before August 28, 2017.
Ryan McKenna, Telephone: 503-220-8262 ext. 51723 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (
This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please
A list of ongoing studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please provide the ClinicalTrials.gov trial number or, if the trial is not registered, the protocol for the study including a study number, the study period, design, methodology, indication and diagnosis, proper use instructions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary and secondary outcomes.
Description of whether the above studies constitute ALL Phase II and above clinical trials sponsored by your organization for this indication and an index outlining the relevant information in each submitted file.
Your contribution will be very beneficial to the EPC Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying with this request must be borne by the submitter.
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program Web site and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
What are the benefits and harms of nonpharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other?
What are the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments of UI in women, and how do they compare with each other?
What are the comparative benefits and harms of nonpharmacological versus pharmacological treatments of UI in women?
What are the benefits and harms of combined nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatment of UI in women?
Adult and elderly (as defined by authors) women with symptoms of UI (as defined by authors).
If >10% of study participants are children or adolescents, men, pregnant women, institutionalized or hospitalized participants, have UI caused by neurological disease or dual fecal and urinary incontinence.
Nonpharmacological interventions: Health education about UI; behavioral therapy, including “lifestyle” interventions (
Pharmacological interventions: Estrogen preparations (topical estrogen); antimuscarinics (
Combinations of eligible nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions.
Interventions not available in the United States and surgical treatments.
Other eligible nonpharmacological interventions, other eligible pharmacological interventions, other eligible combination interventions, no active treatment or placebo.
Noneligible interventions, including surgery.
Measures of UI: Pad tests and other measures of leakage volumes; incontinence counts/frequency (
Quality of life and related questionnaires: Generic, validated; UI-specific, validated.
Other patient-centered outcomes, based on the findings of the contextual question (what defines a successful outcome).
Adverse events.
Bladder and pelvic tests that do not measure UI specifically or are used for diagnostic purposes (
Minimum 4 weeks follow up (since the start of treatment).
None.
Interventions provided in primary care or specialized clinic or equivalent by any healthcare provider; participants are community-dwelling.
Surgical, institutionalized, or in-hospital settings.
Country setting.
Any geographic area.
None.
For effectiveness outcomes: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no minimum sample size, including pooled individual patient data from RCTs; nonrandomized comparative studies that used strategies to reduce bias (
For harms outcomes: RCTs, with no minimum sample size; nonrandomized longitudinal comparative studies (regardless of strategies to reduce bias), including registries or large databases, N≥50 women per group (N≥100 women total); single arm longitudinal studies, including registries, large databases, and large case series N≥100 women; case-control studies (where cases are selected based on presence of harm), N≥50 female cases and ≥50 female controls (N≥100 women total).
All outcomes: Published, peer-reviewed articles or unpublished data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or from the Web site
For effectiveness outcomes: Single group, case-control, and case report/series studies; nonrandomized comparative studies with only crude or unadjusted data.
Publication language.
Any.
Unable to read or translate.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by August 28, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. Antibiotics can have serious adverse effects including
More specifically, this project has the following goals:
• Identify best practices in the delivery of antibiotic stewardship in the acute care, long-term care and ambulatory care settings.
• Adapt the Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program (CUSP) model to enhance antibiotic stewardship efforts in the health care settings.
• Assess the adoption of CUSP for antibiotic stewardship and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in the participating health care systems.
• Develop a bundle of technical and adaptive interventions and associated tools and educational materials designed to support enhanced antibiotic stewardship efforts.
• Provide technical assistance and training to health care organizations nationwide, using a phased approach, to implement effective antibiotic stewardship programs and interventions.
• Improve communication and teamwork between health care workers surrounding antibiotic decision-making.
• Improve communication between health care workers and patients/families surrounding antibiotic decision-making.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor Johns Hopkins University, with subcontracted partner NORC. The
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3) The AHRQ Surveys on Patient Safety Culture will be administered to all participating staff at the beginning and end of the intervention. Each survey asks questions about patient safety issues, medical errors, and event reporting in the respective settings.
a. The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture will be utilized to evaluate safety culture for acute care hospitals.
b. The Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture will be administered in long term care.
c. The Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture will be administered in ambulatory care centers.
(4)
(5)
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “
Comments on this notice must be received by August 28, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. As part of its effort to fulfill its mission, AHRQ, in collaboration with the Department of Defense's (DoD) Tricare Management Activity, developed TeamSTEPPS® (Team Strategies and Tools for Enhancing Performance and Patient Safety) to provide an evidence-based suite of tools and strategies for training teamwork-based patient safety to health care professionals. TeamSTEPPS includes multiple toolkits which are all tied to, or are variants of, the core curriculum. In addition to the core curriculum, TeamSTEPPS resources have been developed for primary care, rapid response systems, long-term care, and patients with limited English proficiency.
The main objective of the TeamSTEPPS program is to improve patient safety by training health care staff in various teamwork, communication, and patient safety concepts, tools, and techniques and ultimately helping to build national capacity for supporting teamwork-based patient safety efforts in health care organizations.
Created in 2007, AHRQ's National Implementation Program has trained Master Trainers who have stimulated the use and adoption of TeamSTEPPS in health care delivery systems. These individuals were trained using the TeamSTEPPS core curriculum at regional training centers across the U.S. AHRQ has also provided technical
Most of the participants in these training programs come from hospital settings, because the TeamSTEPPS core curriculum is most aligned with that context. Given the success of the National Implementation Program in hospital settings, AHRQ launched an effort to provide TeamSTEPPS training to primary care health professionals using the TeamSTEPPS in Primary Care version of the curriculum, which is now referred to as “TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care.”
Under this new initiative, primary care practice facilitators will be trained through online instruction. Upon completion of the course, these individuals will be Master Trainers who will train the staff at primary care practices and implement or support the implementation of TeamSTEPPS tools and strategies in primary care practices.
As part of this initiative, AHRQ seeks to conduct an evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program. This evaluation seeks to understand the effectiveness of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training and how trained practice facilitators implement TeamSTEPPS in primary care practices.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Conduct a formative assessment of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program to determine what revisions and improvement should be made to the training and how it is delivered, and
(2) Identify how trained participants use and implement the TeamSTEPPS tools and resources in primary care settings.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, the Health Research & Educational Trust and its subcontractor, IMPAQ International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
This is a continuation of data collection for the purpose of conducting an evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program. The evaluation is formative in nature as AHRQ seeks information to improve the delivery of the online training.
To conduct the evaluation, the
The
In order to reduce respondent burden, the training participant questionnaire will be administered via the Web. Participant information acquired by HRET and its partner Reingold, Inc. when participants enroll in the TeamSTEPPS for Office-Based Care training program will be used to develop the distribution lists. Each potential respondent will receive up to five email communications to encourage participation (
Using an online system for data collection, rather than administering a paper-based questionnaire, will make completing and submitting the questionnaire less time consuming for respondents. Any skip patterns included in the questionnaire (
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. The
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $24,944.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The FCR is a national database that includes all child support cases handled by state child support agencies (referred to as IV-D cases), and all support orders established or modified on or after October 1, 1998 (referred to as non-IV-D orders). It assists states in locating parties that live in different states to establish, modify, or enforce child support obligations; establish paternity; enforce state law regarding parental kidnapping; and establish or enforce child custody or visitation determinations.
When a state sends the FCR information about persons in a new case or child support order, this new information is automatically compared to existing person information in the FCR. If matches are found, the FPLS notifies all appropriate state child support enforcement agencies of the record match. In this way, a state will know if another state has a case or support order with participants in common with it, and can take appropriate action.
The information collection activities pertaining to the FCR are authorized by: (1) 42 U.S.C. 653(h), requiring the establishment of the Federal Case Registry (FCR) within the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). (2) 42 U.S.C. 654A(e), requiring State child support agencies to include a State Case Registry (SCR) in the state's automated system. (3) 42 U.S.C. 654A(f)(1), requiring states to conduct information comparison activities between the SCR and the FCR.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of the Medical Products and Tobacco (OMPT), has modified its structure. This new organizational structure was approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on December 22, 2016, and became effective on that date.
Rachel Sherman, M.D., Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco, Office of Medical Products and Tobacco, Food and Drug Administration, White Oak Bldg. 1, HFD-40, Room 2307, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20993. Phone: 240-402-4474.
Part D, Chapter D-B, (Food and Drug Administration), the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (35 FR 3685, February 25, 1970; 60 FR 56606, November 9, 1995; 64 FR 36361, July 6, 1999; 72 FR 50112, August 30, 2007; 74 FR 41713, August 18, 2009; and 76 FR 45270, July 28, 2011) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco.
This reorganization establishes the Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) to optimize an integrated cross-center regulatory approach and enhance the coordination of medical product development in oncology. Located within OMPT, OCE will work closely with the directors of the centers, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and all FDA staff involved in oncology efforts. The OCE will be responsible, in accordance with an Inter-Center Agreement between OCE, CBER, CDER, and CDRH, for the clinical portion of medical oncology and malignant hematology applications involving drugs, biologics, and devices. Other functions of the OCE include: Harmonization of cancer-specific regulatory approaches; coordination of oncology-specific regulatory science initiatives and outreach; implementation of cross-center oncology-focused meetings; stakeholder engagement to the external community of other government agencies, industry, academia, professional societies, and patient advocacy groups; and communication with international regulatory agencies.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Medical Products and Tobacco (OMPT), has been restructured as follows:
Pending further delegation, directives, or orders by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, all delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
This reorganization is reflected in FDA's Staff Manual Guide (SMG). Persons interested in seeing the complete Staff Manual Guide can find it on FDA's Web site at:
44 U.S.C. 3101.
Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the
The current rate of 10
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given for the meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council (CSAP NAC) on August 10, 2017.
The Council was established to advise the Secretary, Department of Health and
The meeting will be held in Rockville, Maryland. Attendance by the public will be limited to the space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before one week prior to the meeting. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact on or before one week prior to the meeting. Five minutes maximum will be allotted for each presentation.
To attend onsite, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register at the SAMHSA Committees' Web site,
Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site,
Date/Time/Type: August 10, 2017, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT: (OPEN).
Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 5N76 (lobby level), Rockville, MD 20852, Adobe Connect webcast:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0064, Plan Approval and Records for Subdivision and Stability Regulations—Title 46 CFR Subchapter S without change. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0111] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0111], and must be received by September 25, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0082, Navigation Safety Information and Emergency Instructions for Certain Towing Vessels without change. Our ICR describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0126] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0126], and must be received by September 25, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0017, Various International Agreement Safety Certificates and Documents; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0158] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0158], and must be received by September 25, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0107 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the
A person purchasing articles in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Virgin Islands of the United States receives a sales slip, invoice, or other evidence of purchase which is presented to the CBP officer along with CBP Form 255, which is prepared in triplicate. The CBP officer verifies the information, indicates on
CBP Form 255 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1202 (Chapter 98, Subchapters IV and XVI) and provided for by 19 CFR 145.12, 145.43, 148.110, 148.113, 148.114, 148.115 and 148.116. A sample of this form may be viewed at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0136 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) 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) 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; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
30-Day notice and request for comments; revision of information collection request: 1670-0014.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DHS previously published this information collection request (ICR), in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 28, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security and sent via electronic mail to
Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),
CFATS Program Manager, 866-323-2957,
DHS Proposed Revisions for this Collection are Summarized Below:
• This request contains a name change for two previously approved instruments to clarify the functional purpose of both instruments. Specifically, “Request for a Technical Consultation” has been changed to “Compliance Assistance” and “Notification of New Top-Screen” has been changed to “Top-Screen Update.” No other revisions to the instrument names are proposed.
• The “Request for Redetermination” instrument provides a variety of possible reasons that facilities may select to support the justification for a redetermination request. The Department proposes to amend this instrument to allow facilities to select from a list of possible reasons to support a request for redetermination. No other revisions to this instrument or other instruments are proposed.
• This request proposes the addition of a new instrument titled “Declaration of Reporting Status” which allows a chemical facility to notify the Department that it is not required to register in CSAT or submit a Top-Screen (TS).
OMB is particularly interested in written comments from the public that:
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 the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Address how the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
The Department continues to rely on the analysis and resulting burden estimates provided in the 60-day notice for the instruments included in this ICR.
6 U.S.C. 621-629.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Committee management; notice of an open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet Tuesday, August 22, 2017, in Washington, DC.
The NIAC will meet on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC. Due to limited seating, requests to attend in person will be accepted and processed in the order in which they are received. The meeting's proceedings will also be available via Webcast at
Members of the public are invited to provide comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held during the meeting from 2:15 p.m.-2:35 p.m. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must register in advance and can do so by emailing
Ginger Norris, NIAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, (202) 441-5885 (telephone) or
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The NIAC shall provide the President, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, with advice on the security and resilience of the Nation's critical infrastructure sectors.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
30-Day notice and request for comments; revision of Information Collection Request: 1670-0015.
6 U.S.C. 621-629.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (ISCD), will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DHS previously published this ICR in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 28, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments must be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate via electronic mail to
Comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability Information (CVI),
CFATS Program Manager, 866-323-2957,
This information collection notice was previously published in the
• Removal of the following instruments: (1) “Determination of CVI”; (2) Determination of a “Need to Know” by a Public Official”; (3) “Disclosure of CVI Information; (4) Notification of Emergency or Exigent Circumstances”; and (5) “Tracking Log for CVI Received” from this collection. As required by 5 CFR 1320.5, the Department reevaluated the continued need for each instrument in this collection. This evaluation resulted in a finding these instruments have been used and collected rarely within the last 3 years.
• DHS also proposes to extend this collection with revisions to reduce the estimated burden for the remaining instrument in this collection. DHS proposes a reduction of the number of respondents for the CVI Authorization instrument from 30,000 to 20,000. This estimate is based on historical data and the anticipated impact of the Department's revision of its Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) and enhancement of its risk tiering methodology for the CFATS program. See 81 FR 47001 (Jul. 20, 2016).
In addition, removal of the five instruments proposed is consistent with DHS guidance provided in the DHS CVI Procedural Manual and the requirements specified in 6 CFR 27.400. Per the specific marking on the footer of each page, the DHS CVI Procedural Manual “does not create or confer any new rights or obligations on any person or entity or otherwise operate to bind the public.” Rather, the DHS CVI Procedural Manual describes and encourages the public's use of best practices for complying with the regulatory requirements associated with maintaining, safeguarding, and disclosing CVI set out in 6 CFR 27.400. DHS developed some of the instruments in this collection as part of these best practices, but their use is not mandatory. If this proposed collection is approved, the Department will consider updating its guidance materials to clarify this aspect of the CVI Program.
To the extent that reporting certain information to the Department is required by 6 CFR 27.400(d)(7), that reporting requirement will remain in effect. However, as described in the paragraph above detailing historical usage of the instruments proposed for removal from this collection, DHS expects to receive fewer than ten such reports per year and the Department would likely seek unique pieces of information related to each unauthorized release of CVI, not standard pieces of information.
OMB is particularly interested in written comments from the public that:
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 the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Address how the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
The Department continues to rely on the analysis and resulting burden estimates provided in the 60-day notice for the instruments included in this ICR.
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of New Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security is establishing a new Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records.” This system of records allows the Department of Homeland Security to collect and maintain records on foreign nationals who request physical or information technology system access to the Department of Homeland Security and other U.S. Government partner agencies for which the Department of Homeland Security provides screening support. These individuals may include dual citizens and lawful permanent residents representing foreign interests; lawful permanent residents providing construction and contractual services for the Department of Homeland Security and other U.S. Government partner agencies; foreign visitors to fusion centers or tribal, territorial, state, and local government homeland security programs; and reported foreign contacts of Department of Homeland Security and other U.S. Government employees outside the scope of the employee's official activities required for personnel security purposes.
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, elsewhere in the
Submit comments on or before August 28, 2017. This new system will be effective upon publication. Routine uses will be effective August 28, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0024 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general and privacy-related questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is establishing a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records.”
DHS is publishing this system of records notice to provide transparency on how DHS collects, uses, maintains, and disseminates information relating to foreign nationals who seek access to DHS and partner U.S. Government (USG) agency personnel, information, facilities, programs, research, studies, and information technology (IT) systems. The DHS Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO)/Center for International Safety & Security (CISS) Foreign Access Management (FAM) program uses the Foreign Access Management System (FAMS) to manage the risk assessment process for foreign nationals requesting access to DHS and partner agencies. DHS is responsible for conducting screening of all foreign nationals and foreign entities seeking access to DHS personnel, information, facilities, programs, and IT systems, including: Dual U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPR) representing foreign interests; and foreign contacts and foreign visitors reported by DHS. This SORN also covers the screening of LPRs who provide construction or contractual services (
As part of a government-wide pilot, DHS will also conduct foreign access management screening activities for federal agencies other than DHS participating in the pilot. DHS may also screen foreign visitors to fusion centers or tribal, territorial, state, and local government homeland security programs.
Lastly, DHS uses FAMS records to screen foreign contacts of DHS employees outside the scope of the employee's official activities. DHS and other USG employees and contractors with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information or other special program access have a responsibility to report all foreign contacts that are of a close, continuing personal association and any contacts with known or suspected intelligence officers from any country. Reporting of contact with foreign nationals is not intended to inhibit or discourage contact with foreign nationals. Rather, it permits the Government to manage and assess the risk posed by certain foreign individuals who seek to exploit personal relationships for purposes of collecting classified or sensitive information.
Foreign nationals accessing DHS or a partner USG agency in any of the capacities listed above undergo DHS screening. In addition, foreign nationals may be screened as a result of foreign contact reporting for personnel security purposes. The foreign national screening process consists of both internal and external identity checks. The OCSO/CISS validates the foreign national identifying information provided.
DHS shares vetting, as well as any security anomalies or derogatory information identified through the vetting process, with DHS components and partner USG agencies. DHS will maintain information on any security incidents or suspicious activities recorded during the foreign national's access to DHS or partner USG agencies. The information is shared by secure means commensurate with the classification of the information to be shared.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice. However, to limit the scope of sharing with foreign partners, DHS will consider a foreign entity's ability to safeguard personally identifiable information (PII), and its commitment to and history of safeguarding such information, when determining whether to share records containing PII.
Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records.
Unclassified, Sensitive, For Official Use Only, and Classified.
Records are maintained at the Department of Homeland Security Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices. Electronic records are stored in the Integrated Security Management System (ISMS) as well as in a classified network database.
Director, Center for International Safety & Security, Office of the Chief Security Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
5 U.S.C. 301; 40 U.S.C. 1315; 40 U.S.C. 11331; the Economy Act of 1932,
The purpose of this system is to perform screening for foreign nationals seeking access to DHS and partner USG agency personnel, information, facilities, programs, research, studies, and IT systems. This system is also used to screen foreign contacts and foreign visitors reported by DHS and partner USG agency employees who have met and/or befriended such contacts and visitors outside the scope of the employee's official duties.
Foreign nationals and foreign entities seeking access to USG personnel, information, facilities, programs, research, studies, and IT systems, including: Dual U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPR) representing foreign interests; and foreign contacts and foreign visitors reported by DHS. These include, when requested, foreign visitors to fusion centers or tribal, territorial, state, and local government homeland security programs, and foreign contacts of USG employees who have met or befriended such contacts and visitors outside the scope of the employee's official duties. Further, DHS or USG federal employees that sponsor foreign national access to USG or report foreign contacts outside the scope of their normal employment duties. Finally, LPRs providing construction or contractual services (
For foreign nationals:
• Full name;
• Alias(es);
• Gender;
• Date of birth;
• Place of birth;
• City/country of residence;
• Country of citizenship;
• Passport information (country of issue, number, expiration date);
• Passport copy;
• Photograph;
• Address;
• Telephone number(s);
• Email Address(es);
• Country sponsoring the visit;
• Stated reason for the visit;
• DHS component sponsoring the visit;
• Diplomatic identification information;
• Organization represented, title, or position held;
• Actual employment information (including job title and employer contact information);
• Visa information (type, number, expiration date, and issuance location);
• Foreign Access Management System number;
• Alien registration number; and
• Potential anomalous or derogatory information identified as part of screening and vetting results.
For USG federal employees:
• Full name;
• Title;
• Organization and component;
• Phone number; and
• Email address.
DHS obtains information directly from the federal employee sponsor, and the DHS or USG employee providing the information to DHS for screening. DHS also obtains information from the other DHS and federal systems for vetting purposes, including:
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Advance Passenger Information System (APIS): DHS/CBP-005 APIS, 80 FR 13407 (March 13, 2015);
• CBP Arrival and Departure Information System (ADIS): DHS/CBP-021 ADIS, 80 FR 72081 (November 18, 2015);
• CBP Automated Targeting System (ATS): DHS/CBP-006 ATS, 77 FR 30297 (May 22, 2012);
• CBP TECS: DHS/CBP-011 TECS, 73 FR 77778 (December 19, 2008).
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Criminal Arrest Records and Immigration Enforcement Records (CARIER): DHS/ICE-011 CARIER, 81 FR 72080 (October 19, 2016); and
• ICE Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS): DHS/ICE-001 SEVIS, 75 FR 412 (January 5, 2010).
• National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT): DHS/US-VISIT-004 DHS IDENT, 72 FR 31080 (June 5, 2007);
• U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) Alien File, Index, and National File Tracking System (A-File): DHS/USCIS/ICE/CBP-001 A-File, 78 FR 69864 (November 21, 2013);
• USCIS Benefits Information System (BIS): DHS/USCIS-007 BIS, 81 FR 72069 (October 19, 2016);
DHS also obtains information from intelligence community classified systems for screening and vetting.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist another federal recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach; or
2. DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records; and (a) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, harm to DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To federal and foreign government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies or components when DHS becomes aware of an indication of a threat or potential threat to national or international security, or when such use is to conduct national intelligence and security investigations or assist in anti-terrorism efforts and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
I. To federal government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies or components to facilitate CISS screening checks.
J. To other federal agencies to assist in their determination of whether to grant a requesting foreign national with access to that federal agency.
K. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer, when DHS is aware of a need to use relevant data for purposes of testing new technology.
L. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
DHS stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
Records may be retrieved by foreign contact or USG employee name, or other personal identifiers listed in the categories of records, above.
In accordance with NARA-approved retention schedule N1-563-09-1, DHS retains information collected on foreign visitors for screening in FAMS and in the C-LAN access database for twenty years.
DHS safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act, and those of the Judicial Redress Act if applicable. However, DHS will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief FOIA Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered JRA records, see “Record Access Procedures” above.
See “Record Access Procedures” above.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). When this system receives a record from another system exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
This is a new system of records and DHS has not published any prior notices that apply to these records.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation and State of Washington negotiated the Fifth Amendment to the Tribal State Compact for the Class III Gaming between the Squaxin Island Tribe and the State of Washington governing Class III gaming; this notice announces approval of the Agreement to Amend Compact.
This notice is applicable as of July 27, 2017.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior withdraw 39.60 acres for a 20-year term to protect the integrity of the historic and cultural resources at the Schwartz & Leff Administrative Site located along the North Fork of the Salmon River in the Klamath National Forest. This notice segregates the land from location and entry under the United States mining laws for up to two years while the application is being processed. This notice also gives the public an opportunity to comment on the withdrawal application and to request a public meeting.
Comments and public meeting requests must be received by October 25, 2017.
Comments and public meeting requests should be sent to the Salmon Scott River Ranger District, 11263 North Highway 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032-9702, Attn: Gay Baxter; or by email at
Elizabeth Easley, BLM California State Office, 916-978-4673,
The USFS has filed an application requesting that the Secretary of the Interior withdraw, subject to valid existing rights, the National Forest System land described below from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. ch. 2), for the protection of the cultural and historic resources within the Schwartz & Leff Administrative Site.
The area described contains 39.60 acres in Siskiyou County.
The lands described above are National Forest System lands; the Secretary shall make a withdrawal only with the consent of the head of the department or agency administering these lands. The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain non-discretionary uses and would not provide adequate protection of the Federal investment in the improvements located on the lands. There are no suitable alternative sites with equal or greater benefit to the government. Conversely, there are alternative sites that will remain open to mineral entry that hold greater mineral potential than this location.
No additional water rights will be needed to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal.
For a period until October 25, 2017, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the USFS office at the address listed above. Notice is also hereby given that the opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the USFS office at the address listed above by October 25, 2017.
If it is determined that a public meeting will be held, a notice will be published to announce the time and place in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Individuals who submit written comments may request confidentiality by asking us in their comment to withhold personal identifying information from public review. We cannot, however, guarantee that we will be able to do so.
For a period until July 29, 2019, subject to valid existing rights, the National Forest System lands described in this notice will be segregated from location and entry under the United States mining laws, unless the application is denied or canceled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. The temporary land uses that may be permitted during the temporary segregation period include licenses, permits, rights of way, and disposal of vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.
43 CFR 2300.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service) are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as a part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other federal agencies to comment on this ICR. We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this ICR, we must receive them by August 28, 2017.
Please send your comments on the ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, to
Bret Meldrum, Chief Social Science Program, at (970) 267-7295 or
The National Park Service (NPS) is requesting to renew a previously approved collection (OMB Control Number: 1024-0216 which is required to provide an understanding of visitor satisfaction and an understanding of the park and agency's performance related to The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) NPS Goals IIa1 (visitor satisfaction) and IIb1 (visitor understanding and appreciation). The Visitor Survey Card (VSC) was developed to measure each park unit's performance related to these two goals. The Visitor Survey Card contains eight questions regarding visitor evaluations of service and facility quality, awareness of park significance, and basic demographic information. Each year, all NPS units nationwide (approximately 332) are required to collect data using the Visitor Survey Card. Data and information collected through the VSC are used to measure and report performance related to a broad list of GPRA Goals and to provide feedback used by Superintendents and other managers to develop performance improvement plans.
On January 10, 2017, we published a
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
The authorities for this action are: The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA) (31 U.S.C. 1101 § 1115), the National Park Service Protection Interpretation and research in System (54 U.S.C. 100701); National Park Service Protection Research Mandate (54 U.S.C. 100702); National Environmental Policy Act of as amended in 1982 (Sec 102 [42 U.S.C. 4332A]).
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before July 1, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by August 11, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before July 1, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
In the interest of preservation, a
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
On July 20, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the lawsuit entitled
The United States' Complaint, filed on August 18, 2016, Dkt. Nos. 1, 4, alleges that Harley-Davidson, Inc. (and three related companies) manufactured and sold over 339,392 after-market devices (known as “Super Tuners” and used with Harley-Davidson motorcycles) in violation of the Clean Air Act prohibition on the manufacture or sale of devices that defeat the functioning of the motorcycles' certified emissions control system. The Complaint also alleges, relatedly, that Defendants violated the provision of the Act that prohibits any person from removing or rendering inoperative a motor vehicle's certified emissions control system and from causing such “tampering.” Finally, the Complaint alleges that Defendants manufactured and sold more than 12,000 motorcycles from model years 2006, 2007, and 2008 that were not certified by EPA as required by the Clean Air Act.
The Consent Decree requires Defendants to stop selling the illegal tuners in the United States by August 23, 2016. Defendants will also offer to buy back all such tuners in stock at Harley-Davidson dealerships across the country and destroy them. The Decree requires Defendants to obtain an Executive Order from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for any tuners Defendants sell in the United States in the future. These Executive Orders (EOs) will demonstrate that the CARB-certified tuners do not cause Defendants' motorcycles to exceed the EPA-certified emissions limits. Defendants must also conduct tests on motorcycles that have been tuned with the EO-certified tuners and provide the results to EPA to ensure that their motorcycles remain in compliance with EPA emissions requirements. In addition, for any uncertified Super Tuners that Defendants sell outside the United States in the future, they must label them as not for use in the United States.
Under the Consent Decree, Defendants must also ensure that all of their future motorcycle models intended for sale in the United States are certified by EPA.
Finally, Defendants will pay a civil penalty of $12 million.
The Consent Decree lodged with the Court on July 20 is identical to a Consent Decree lodged with this Court on August 18, 2016, Dkt. 2, except that the Consent Decree lodged on July 20 (and on which comment is now being sought) does not include the requirement in the original Consent Decree for Defendants to “fund a program” (described in Appendix A of the original Consent Decree) that required Defendants to pay a third-party organization to mitigate emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the northeastern United States by replacing old, higher polluting woodstoves with emissions-certified woodstoves (“mitigation project”). As explained briefly below, certain new developments led the United States and Defendants to agree to revise the Consent Decree in this manner.
On June 5, 2017, the Attorney General issued a policy,
The United States and Defendants also became aware that the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) is developing a legal opinion regarding the original Consent Decree, focusing on the mitigation project. On February 6, 2017, the United States received a letter from counsel for Harley-Davidson asking the United States to delay moving to enter the Consent Decree until GAO completed its evaluation. The United States has been informed by GAO that development of its legal opinion would likely not be concluded for many more months. The mitigation project was also the subject of public comment during the notice and comment period.
In light of these facts, the United States and Harley-Davidson attempted to negotiate a substitute mitigation project, but were unable to reach timely agreement on a suitable alternative. The United States is mindful of the length of time this settlement has already been pending and, in the interest of moving forward with the important relief secured by the Consent Decree, has sought and received Defendants' approval to modify the Decree to remove the mitigation project.
The United States has decided on balance that proceeding now with the substitute Consent Decree is in the public interest.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $9.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On July 18, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in the lawsuit entitled
In this action, the United States filed a complaint under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Action (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607, seeking to recover response costs incurred in connection with the formerly named B.F. Goodrich Superfund Site, which was subsequently renamed the Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares Superfund Site (“RFF Site”). The proposed consent decree (“Wong Consent Decree”) requires the Estate of Wong (“Estate”) to pay five million nine hundred thousand dollars ($5.9 million) to be allocated as established by the consent decree between the United States and Goodrich Corporation (“Goodrich Consent Decree”) approved by the Court on July 2, 2013 (Dkt. No. 1821). In return, the Goodrich Consent Decree provides, among other things, certain covenants not to sue pursuant to CERCLA and Section 7003 of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Wong Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under Section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the Wong Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $12.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.
Notice of reinstatement, Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLP.
This notice advises that, Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLP has been reinstated as an eligible bidder on Federal contracts and subcontracts. For further information, contact Debra Carr, Director, Division of Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room C3325, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-0104 (voice) or (202) 693-1337 (TTY) (these are not toll-free numbers).
Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLP, is as of this date, reinstated as an eligible bidder on Federal and federally assisted contracts and subcontracts.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Joint Quarterly Narrative Progress Report,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 28, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Joint Quarterly Narrative Progress Report, previously called the Employment and Training Data Validation Requirement, information collection. This revision will allow the ETA to support reporting, recordkeeping, and program evaluation requirements for the following grant programs: H-1B grant programs (started July 1, 2016 or later), National Dislocated Worker Grants, National Farmworker Jobs Program, Reentry Employment Opportunities youth and adult grant programs, Senior Community Service Employment Program, and YouthBuild. The revised collection consists of a streamlined quarterly narrative report template to be used across all listed grant programs. WIOA section 185 authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• 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;
• 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 to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application. Additionally, TUVRNA requests the removal of a test standard from its scope of recognition.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before August 11, 2017.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. TUVRNA requests the addition of one test standard to its NRTL scope of recognition. TUVRNA is further requesting the removal of a recognized test standard from its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA currently has five facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its
TUVRNA submitted an application, dated September 30, 2015 (OSHA-2007-0042-0022), to expand its recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standard found in TUVRNA's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
Additionally, TUVRNA submitted an application on April 7, 2017 (OSHA-2007-0042-0025) to reduce their scope of recognition by one test standard. Table 2 below lists the recognized test standard that TUVRNA would like to remove from their scope of recognition.
TUVRNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and comparability analysis, indicate that TUVRNA can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of this one test standard for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVRNA's application. Further, TUVRNA submitted an acceptable request to remove a recognized test standard from their NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Additionally, OSHA requests comments on the application to remove one test standard from TUVRNA's NRTL scope of recognition. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-3653, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant TUVRNA's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Thomas M. Galassi, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
We are providing public notice that we have submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. We invite you to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
OMB must receive written comments at the address below on or before August 28, 2017.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, desk officer for NARA, by mail to Office of Management and Budget; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503; fax to 202-395-5167; or by email to
Direct requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement to Tamee Fechhelm by phone at 301-837-1694 or by fax at 301-837-0319.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we invite comment on proposed information collections. We published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on May 24, 2017 (82 FR 23840); and we received no comments. We have therefore submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval.
In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection and its accuracy; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information NARA collects; (d) ways we could minimize the burden on respondents of
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
The NCUA Board (Board) is considering closing the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund (Stabilization Fund) in 2017, prior to its scheduled closing date in June 2021. Closing the Stabilization Fund and distributing all assets, property, and funds to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund) will increase the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio and allow for the return to insured credit unions of any equity above the normal operating level. The return of excess equity would be accomplished through a distribution from the Share Insurance Fund in conformance with the Federal Credit Union Act (the Act). However, given the nature of certain assets and liabilities of the Stabilization Fund, the Share Insurance Fund's assumption of these assets and liabilities will introduce additional risk of volatility to the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio. Therefore, the Share Insurance Fund would need to hold sufficient equity to cover potential changes in the value of its claims on the failed corporate credit union asset management estates. In addition, the Share Insurance Fund needs to have enough equity to cover other risks to the equity ratio, such as losses on insured credit unions, under the same macroeconomic conditions that create volatility in the asset management estate values. To ensure the Share Insurance Fund has sufficient equity to absorb these risks, the Board proposes to raise the normal operating level to 1.39 percent.
This notice provides a discussion of the reasons the Board is proposing to close the Stabilization Fund in 2017 and the basis used to determine the normal operating level necessary to account for the additional risk to the Share Insurance Fund. In addition, the notice sets forth a new policy by which the Board would set the normal operating level. The Board solicits comments on each of these proposed actions.
Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
Anthony Cappetta, Supervisory Financial Analyst, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, or telephone: (703) 518-1592.
Public Law 111-22,
The Act specifies that the Stabilization Fund will terminate 90 days after the seven-year anniversary of its first borrowing from the U.S. Treasury.
In March 2009, the Board conserved U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Credit Union. In September 2010, the Board conserved three additional corporate credit unions and publicly announced the Corporate System Resolution Program. The Board placed the five corporate credit unions into liquidation in the fourth quarter of 2010. The Board, as Liquidating Agent, administers the assets and liabilities of the five failed corporate credit unions in separate legal entities, referred to as asset management estates.
The Corporate System Resolution Program included providing short-term and long-term funding to resolve a portfolio of residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, other asset-backed securities, and corporate bonds (collectively referred to as the Legacy Assets) held by the liquidated corporate credit unions. Under the Corporate System Resolution Program, NCUA created a re-securitization program where NCUA issued a series of NCUA Guaranteed Notes (NGNs). The sale of NGNs to investors has provided long-term funding for the Legacy Assets. The NGNs are guaranteed by NCUA in its Agency capacity, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. While the accounting for obligations associated with the NGNs occurs through the Stabilization Fund, the guaranty is not specific to the Stabilization Fund. All NCUA agency funds for which payments on the NGN guarantees is a permitted use, including the Share Insurance Fund, are potential sources for guaranty obligations prior to any recourse to the U.S. Treasury.
During its life, the Stabilization Fund provides the primary funding necessary for NCUA's guarantees on the NGNs and to complete the resolution of the corporate credit union asset management estates. The majority of this funding has been from two primary sources: Borrowings of $5.1 billion (peak outstanding balance) on NCUA's $6 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury and $4.8 billion in Stabilization Fund assessments paid by insured credit unions.
In 2010, when NCUA announced the Corporate System Resolution Program, the outstanding principal balance of the Legacy Assets totaled over $40 billion—about four times the size of the Share Insurance Fund. The initial outstanding balance of guaranteed notes backed by the Legacy Assets and sold to investors through the NGN program in 2010 and 2011 totaled approximately $28 billion—almost three times the size of the Share Insurance Fund at that time. As of March 2017, the outstanding principal balance of the Legacy Assets and the outstanding balance of the guaranteed notes back by them have declined to $12.7 billion and $7.5 billion, respectively. Both of these balances are less than the current size of the Share Insurance Fund, which is $13.2 billion in total assets as of March 31, 2017.
The projected range of lifetime Legacy Asset defaults was $13.2 billion to $16.4 billion as of December 2011. As of March 2017, the projected range of lifetime Legacy Asset defaults has declined to $9.9 billion to $10.3 billion. In addition, NCUA's pursuit of legal recoveries in its capacity as Liquidating Agent against various third parties in connection with the Legacy Assets has resulted in net recoveries of approximately $3.8 billion after fees and expenses.
It is now possible for the remaining obligations of the Corporate System Resolution Program to be borne by the Share Insurance Fund without inordinate risk, provided additional equity is maintained while the exposure to remaining resolution program obligations exist. As a result, the Board believes the purpose of the Stabilization Fund has been fulfilled.
The Act sets forth the purpose, permissible expenditures, borrowing and repayment authorities, assessment authority, investment authority, and procedures for closing the Stabilization Fund.
The Board is aware of industry opinions that the Act may permit a distribution to insured credit unions directly from the Stabilization Fund. The Board does not believe this is permissible for the following reasons.
NCUA's authority to use Stabilization Fund money arises from the reference to 12 U.S.C. 1783(a) in the legislation that created the Stabilization Fund.
Here, a distribution, such as an assessment rebate, does not plainly meet any of those criteria, assuming an appropriate nexus to a corporate credit union conservatorship or liquidation could be established in each instance. First, a distribution to insured credit unions from the Stabilization Fund, by its namesake alone, would not be a payment of insurance under section 1787. Further, a distribution could not be in the form of assistance under section 1788, since it would not go to credit unions for the assistance purposes described in section 1788. Finally, a distribution is not an “administrative expense” or “other expense” in the context of the Act.
While the general definition of an expense can be quite broad,
In the only other circumstance where the legislation references a distribution in any manner, it is in reference to the Stabilization Fund's closing.
The financial statements of the Stabilization Fund and the Share Insurance Fund are presented under standards promulgated by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). These financial statements are presented and audited by calendar year. With the closing of the Stabilization Fund, NCUA intends to prepare final financial statements for the Stabilization Fund as of September 30, 2017. These financial statements would be audited by NCUA's Office of the Inspector General.
Per applicable accounting standards, the assets and liabilities of the Stabilization Fund will be distributed to the Share Insurance Fund at September 30, 2017 values. This transfer will increase the net position of the Share Insurance Fund, resulting in an increase to the equity ratio. As required by applicable accounting standards, certain budgetary accounts will also transfer and be shown in the Statement of Budgetary Resources. NCUA determined the applicable accounting standards in consultation with an independent accounting firm.
The post-closure financial statements and note disclosures for the Share Insurance Fund will continue to provide the same level of detail about the receivables from the corporate asset management estates and the related fiduciary activities. That is, the detailed note disclosures in the Stabilization Fund's financial statements will now be in the note disclosures of the Share Insurance Fund's financial statements. NCUA does not envision any changes to the accounting for the asset management estates. The accounting for each asset management estate has and will remain distinct, which is a requisite in fulfilling the Board's responsibility as Liquidating Agent.
For illustrative purposes, Table 1 depicts the March 31, 2017 Share Insurance Fund balance sheet (unaudited), the March 31, 2017 Stabilization Fund balance sheet (unaudited), and the pro-forma Share Insurance Fund balance sheet (unaudited) as if the Stabilization Fund were closed on that day.
Subsequent to March 31, 2017, and prior to the end of the year, there are several items that have been or are expected to be recognized that will ultimately affect the net position of the Share Insurance Fund. Table 2 includes these additional items and the effect on the projected net position as of December 31, 2017.
The
The closure of the Stabilization Fund would increase the Share Insurance Fund's net position. This would result in an increase to the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio. Table 3 shows the estimated equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund as of December 31, 2017 as if the Stabilization Fund were closed.
The Share Insurance
• Any loans to the Fund from the Federal Government, and any interest on those loans, have been repaid;
• The Fund's equity ratio exceeds the normal operating level; and
• The Fund's available assets ratio exceeds 1.0 percent.”
As of October 24, 2016, all NCUA borrowings from the Federal Government had been repaid. The Share Insurance Fund's available asset ratio is 1.21 percent as of March 31, 2017, well above the 1.0 percent minimum and is projected to remain above 1.0 percent.
To the extent the equity ratio exceeds the normal operating level as of calendar yearend 2017, a distribution would be paid to insured credit unions in accordance with the Act and § 741.4 of NCUA regulations. The distribution in total would equal the dollar amount of equity in excess of the normal operating level. For additional information on how the pro rata distribution would be made, see the July 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this subject.
Per the Act, the normal operating level is an equity ratio set by the Board and may not be less than 1.20 percent and not more than 1.50 percent.
The current normal operating level is 1.30 percent, set by the Board in 2007 based on the Board-approved methodology in place at that time. When establishing the 1.30 percent normal operating level in 2007, the Board affirmed that the Share Insurance Fund would maintain a counter-cyclical posture. In practice, this means the Share Insurance Fund's equity should be built up during periods of economic prosperity and allowed to decline during periods of economic adversity. A counter-cyclical posture allows NCUA to maintain the Share Insurance Fund at a level that is sufficient for it to remain viable even during economic stress conditions without having to charge a premium when credit unions can least afford it.
With the proposed closing of the Stabilization Fund, the Board considered whether the current normal operating level of 1.30 percent would be sufficient to cover all of the Share Insurance Fund's resulting exposures. To determine this, NCUA modeled the losses that would be expected under a moderate and a severe recession.
• Impact on the equity ratio of the estimated decline in the value of the Share Insurance Fund's claims on the liquidated corporate credit unions' asset management estates—which would be driven by a reduction in the value of the Legacy Assets.
• Performance of the Share Insurance Fund based on the three primary factors that currently affect the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio: Insured share growth, yield on investments, and insurance losses.
The Share Insurance Fund was modeled over a five-year period and the Legacy Assets were modeled over their remaining life.
At NCUA's request, BlackRock incorporated the Adverse and Severely Adverse macroeconomic scenarios into its proprietary models to project cash flows for all of the Legacy Assets.
Credit spreads indicative of Adverse and Severely Adverse market conditions are applied to the forward interest rate curve to arrive at a discount rate to calculate the present value of the Legacy Asset cash flows, as shown in Table 4. For the Adverse scenario, credit spreads similar to the period of the U.S. credit rating downgrade in August 2011 were used. For the Severely Adverse scenario, credit spreads similar to the peak of the Great Recession in 2009 were used.
The projected Legacy Asset cash flows are aggregated by NGN and run through the applicable NGN waterfall to determine their related projected cash flows. As shown in Table 5, the NGN-related cash flows include guaranty fees paid to NCUA, guaranty payments made by NCUA to NGN investors for principal and interest shortfalls, guaranty reimbursements made to NCUA for any guaranty payments made, and any residual cash flows left after all of these payments have been made. The present value of the NGN cash flows is determined by the same discounting approach discussed above.
NCUA then applied the un-securitized projected Legacy Asset cash flows and NGN cash flows to the applicable asset management estates based on the payout priorities in NCUA regulations.
Under the Adverse scenario, NCUA projects a decline in value of its receivables from asset management estates, net of approximately $400 million, which would equate to a 4-basis point reduction in the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio. Under the Severely Adverse scenario, the potential decline in value is approximately $1.1 billion or 11 basis points.
NCUA uses the relevant variables from the economic scenarios outlined above to project the values of the three primary drivers of the Share Insurance Fund: Insured share growth, insurance losses, and yield on investments. NCUA developed regression equations that relate the historical movements of economic variables to movements in two of the primary drivers of the Share Insurance Fund equity ratio: Insurance losses and growth in insured shares. The equations translate the economic conditions in the Adverse and Severely Adverse scenarios into projections of the level of losses and insured share growth. The equations are relatively straightforward and translate economic developments into Share Insurance Fund drivers in a commonsense way using historical data that extends back to the early-to-mid 1990s. For example, the equation for share growth relates annual growth in total shares (inflation-adjusted) from 1991 to 2016 to the unemployment rate, the change in the average annual unemployment rate, the change in the average annual three-month Treasury bill, and the year-to-year growth in real disposable income. In the equation, a rise in unemployment first raises share growth, but continued high unemployment eventually leads to lower growth. Faster income growth tends to lead to faster share growth, and a rising interest rate tends to reduce share growth.
For the insurance loss equation, NCUA projects the portion of shares accounted for by CAMEL 4 and 5 rated federally insured credit unions using data from 1996 to 2016 for the unemployment rate and house price growth.
To determine the yield on the Share Insurance Fund investment portfolio, interest rate inputs are taken directly from the Adverse and Severely Adverse stress scenarios. These inputs are applied to the Share Insurance Fund's investment portfolio assuming a seven-year ladder.
As
The results of each stress scenario, expressed as the calendar yearend Share Insurance Fund equity ratio, are included in Table 8 (based on the current equity ratio of 1.26 percent).
Neither
• Projected declines in the equity ratio, even under no economic stress.
• Extraordinary losses and/or failures in credit unions that are not market related, such as those from fraud or other asset “bubbles”.
• Unusual or abnormally high insured share growth materially different from the historical correlation.
• Economic conditions that involve greater volatility in one or more market indicators as compared to the stress scenarios modeled.
The Board has the responsibility to be prudent in managing the Share Insurance Fund. In addition to maintaining public confidence in federal share insurance, it is important that NCUA maintain a strong Share Insurance Fund for the mutual benefit of the credit union community and the taxpayers. The Board believes that the Share Insurance Fund should be able to withstand a moderate recession without the equity ratio falling below 1.20 percent. This approach is consistent with the Act's minimum equity level for the Share Insurance Fund set by Congress. Additionally, it allows NCUA to maintain a counter-cyclical posture, which helps to ensure that credit unions will not need to impair their contributed capital deposit or pay premiums when they can least afford it. The Board does not believe it should set the normal operating level at a point where mandatory premiums or development of a Fund restoration plan would be necessary in a moderate recession.
The Board also considered the amount of equity necessary for the Share Insurance Fund to withstand a severe global recession without having the equity ratio fall below 1.20 percent. While the Severely Adverse stress scenario is more conservative, the Board believes managing to the Adverse scenario provides a good balance between maintaining sufficient equity in the Share Insurance Fund and keeping money at work in the credit union community.
Based on the analyses above, Table 9 shows the calculation of what the equity ratio needs to be to withstand a moderate and a severe recession without falling below 1.20 percent.
To
• A 13 basis point decline in the equity ratio due to the impact on the
• A 4 basis point decline in the value of the Share Insurance Fund's claim on the corporate credit union asset management estates.
• A 2 basis point decline in the equity ratio expected to occur prior to when the remaining NGNs begin to mature in 2020 and remaining exposure to the Legacy Assets can begin to be reduced. This helps ensure the 4 basis points of additional equity to account for the potential decline in value of the claims on the asset management estates is maintained in the Share Insurance Fund until Legacy Assets can be sold.
Therefore, the Board proposes to set the normal operating level at 1.39 percent. Based on the yearend equity ratio projections of 1.45 percent to 1.47 percent from Table 3, this would result in an estimated initial Share Insurance Fund distribution of 6 to 8 basis points (approximately $600 to $800 million) paid in 2018.
The Board retains the authority to reassess and set the normal operating level periodically, in particular when there are changes in the risks to the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio, such as maturity of the NGNs. Based on the approach discussed above, the Board proposes to replace its current policy for setting the normal operating level with the following.
Periodically, NCUA will review the equity needs of the Share Insurance Fund and provide this analysis to stakeholders. Board action is only necessary when this review determines that a change in the normal operating level is warranted. Any change to the normal operating level of more than 1 basis point shall be made only after a public announcement of the proposed adjustment and opportunity for comment. In soliciting comment, NCUA will issue a report including data supporting the proposal.
The Board's main objectives in setting the normal operating level are to:
• Retain public confidence in federal share insurance,
• Prevent impairment of the one percent contributed capital deposit, and
• Ensure the Share Insurance Fund can withstand a moderate recession without the equity ratio declining below 1.20 percent over a five-year period.
The Board seeks comments on the proposed closure of the Stabilization Fund in 2017 and the related approach for setting the normal operating level of the Share Insurance Fund. Commenters are also encouraged to discuss any other relevant issues they believe the Board should consider with respect to this matter. In particular, the Board is interested in comments on whether to:
• Close the Stabilization Fund in 2017, close it at some future date, or wait until it is currently scheduled to close in 2021.
• Set the normal operating level based on the Share Insurance Fund's ability to withstand a moderate recession. Or, should the Share Insurance Fund be able to withstand a severe recession.
• Base the approach to setting the normal operating level on preventing the equity ratio from declining below 1.20 percent, or some other higher minimum level.
Commenters are encouraged to provide the specific basis for their comments and, to the extent feasible, documentation to support any recommendations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3.
The determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is effective July 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Billy Gleaves, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5848; email:
South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G), on behalf of itself and the South Carolina Public Service
The ITAAC for VCSNS, Unit 2 are in Appendix C of the VCSNS, Unit 2 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A092). The ITAAC for VCSNS, Unit 3 are in Appendix C of VCSNS, Unit 3 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A101).
The NRC staff has determined that the specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met. The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF) for each ITAAC. The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs. Each ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed. The NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things: (1) Each ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) each ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC are met; and (3) any NRC inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with that ITAAC have been closed.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of these ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If the NRC staff receives new information that suggests the NRC staff's determination on any of these ITAAC is incorrect, then the NRC staff will determine whether to reopen that ITAAC (including withdrawing the NRC staff's determination on that ITAAC). The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for these ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of these ITAAC will be reflected on the NRC's Web site at
This notice fulfills the NRC staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
A complete list of the review status for VCSNS, Unit 2 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's Web site at
A complete list of the review status for VCSNS, Unit 3 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) to withdraw its application dated December 15, 2016, for proposed amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52. In that submitted, Duke Energy proposed to adopt multiple Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers that would have modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.12, “Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System,” to increase the time allowed for swapping charging pumps to one hour. The portion related to TSTF-285-A, Revision 1, “Charging Pump Swap LTOP Allowance,” is being withdrawn.
July 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0104 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Mahoney, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-3857, email:
The NRC has granted the request of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated December 15, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16350A422), for proposed amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 and NPF-52 for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina.
The submittal dated December 15, 2016, proposed to adopt multiple Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers that would have modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.12, “Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System,” to increase the time allowed for swapping charging pumps to one hour. The portion related to TSTF-285-A, Revision 1, “Charging Pump Swap LTOP Allowance,” is being withdrawn. The licensee's application was noticed previously in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4.
The determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses for VEGP, Units 3 and 4 is effective July 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia, (hereafter called the licensee) has submitted inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) closure notifications (ICNs) under § 52.99(c)(1) of title 10 of the
The ITAAC for VEGP, Unit 3 are in Appendix C of the VEGP, Unit 3 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106). The ITAAC for VEGP, Unit 4 are in Appendix C of VEGP, Unit 4 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A135).
The NRC staff has determined that the specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met. The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF) for each ITAAC. The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs. Each ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed. The NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things: (1) each ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) each ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC are met; and (3) any NRC inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with that ITAAC have been closed.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of these ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If the NRC staff receives new information that suggests the NRC staff's determination on any of these ITAAC is incorrect, then the NRC staff will determine whether to reopen that ITAAC (including
This notice fulfills the NRC staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
A complete list of the review status for VEGP, Unit 3 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's Web site at
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 4 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS Accession Number for each ICN received, the ADAMS Accession Number for each VEF, and the ADAMS Accession Numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found on the NRC's Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 CFR 2.206 request; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is giving notice that by petition dated February 8, 2017, Barry Quigley (the petitioner) has requested that the NRC take action with regard to Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner's requests are included in the
July 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0167 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Joel S. Wiebe, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6606, email:
On February 8, 2017, the petitioner requested that the NRC take action with regard to Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17061A127). The petitioner requested: (1) Issue a violation under part 50 of title 10 of the
As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that: (1) Break enthalpies used in the MSIV room pressurization AOR are actually the thermodynamic internal energy of the steam, not the enthalpy. Since in the range of interest, the internal energy is about 13 percent less than the enthalpy, the energy flow to the areas of concern is non-conservative. Steam flow from secondary piping is neglected; (2) Corrective actions to resolve an issue in the AOR are long overdue (8 years) and improperly tracked; (3) A proposed revision to the AOR shows that the MSIV room roof slabs will be ejected by the high pressures in the MSIV rooms becoming potential missiles; and (4) Management dismissed information in the Updated Final Safety Evaluation Report (UFSAR) that supported the concerns about the AOR as “excessive detail” and directed personnel to remove the information. Management dismissed UFSAR internal inconsistency related to the “Break Exclusion Zone” without discussion or review and stated that the information supporting the concern could be deleted as an UFSAR cleanup item. Recently, there was an operability concern where engineering management maintained a
The request, except for the petitioner's item 3, which does not request enforcement action, is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner met with the Petition Review Board (PRB) on April 13, 2017, to discuss the petition; the transcript of that meeting is an additional supplement to the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML17111A774). On June 12, 2017, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the PRB accepted the petition items 1, 2, 4, and 5 for review under 10 CFR 2.206.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) to withdraw its application dated December 9, 2016, for a proposed amendment and exemption to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, respectively. The proposed amendment would have revised the COLs concerning the design details of the containment recirculation cooling system (VCS) and radiologically controlled area ventilation system (VAS). SNC submitted the withdrawal request in a letter dated June 28, 2017.
July 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ruth C. Reyes, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3249; email:
The NRC has granted the request of SNC (the licensee) to withdraw its December 9, 2016, application (ADAMS Accession No. ML16344A411) for proposed amendment and exemption to COL NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, respectively, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The proposed amendment would have changed plant-specific Tier 1 (and COL Appendix C) Tables 2.7.5-1, 2.7.5-2, and 2.7.7-3 and associated Updated Final Safety Analysis Report text, tables, and figures related to: (1) Modifying the configuration of the containment recirculation fan coil unit assemblies of the VCS, and revising the values for the various design parameters affected by this re-configuration, (2) adding a fourth pressure differential indicator to the radiologically controlled area ventilation system to be located in the auxiliary building component cooling system valve room, and (3) reducing the total ventilation flow provided through the VAS fuel handling area ventilation subsystem as a result of a reduction in heat loads in the areas serviced by the VAS.
This proposed amendment request was noticed in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.”
Submit comments by September 25, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0127 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:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0127 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Combined license application; revised notice of hearing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested portion of this proceeding regarding the application of Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) for combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two additional units (Units 6 and 7) at the Turkey Point site in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This mandatory hearing will concern safety and environmental matters relating to the requested COLs.
The hearing will be held on October 5, 2017, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. For the schedule for submitting pre-filed
Please refer to Docket ID 52-040 and 52-041 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods: NRC's Electronic Hearing Docket: You may obtain publicly available documents related to this hearing online at
•
•
Denise McGovern, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-0681; email:
The Commission hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), it will convene an evidentiary session to receive testimony and exhibits in the uncontested portion of this proceeding regarding FPL's June 30, 2009, application for COLs under part 52 of title 10 of the
The Commission will conduct this hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on October 5, 2017, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The hearing on these issues will continue on subsequent days, if necessary.
The Commission is the presiding officer for this proceeding.
The matter at issue in this proceeding is whether the review of the application by the Commission's staff has been adequate to support the findings found in 10 CFR 52.97 and 10 CFR 51.107. Those findings that must be made for each COL are as follows:
The Commission will determine whether (1) the applicable standards and requirements of the Act and the Commission's regulations have been met; (2) any required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; (3) there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's regulations; (4) the applicant is technically and financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized; and (5) issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
The Commission will (1) determine whether the requirements of Sections 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) of NEPA and the applicable regulations in 10 CFR part 51 have been met; (2) independently consider the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record of the proceeding with a view to determining the appropriate action to be taken; (3) determine, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, whether the combined licenses should be issued, denied, or appropriately conditioned to protect environmental values; and (4) determine whether the NEPA review conducted by the NRC staff has been adequate.
No later than September 14, 2017, unless the Commission directs otherwise, the NRC staff and the applicant shall submit a list of its anticipated witnesses for the hearing.
No later than September 14, 2017, unless the Commission directs otherwise, the applicant shall submit its pre-filed written testimony. The NRC staff previously submitted its testimony on December 2, 2016.
The Commission may issue written questions to the applicant or the NRC staff before the hearing. If such questions are issued, an order containing such questions will be issued no later than September 1, 2017. Responses to such questions are due September 14, 2017, unless the Commission directs otherwise.
No later than August 30, 2017, any interested State, local government body, or affected, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe may file with the Commission a statement of any issues or questions to which the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe wishes the Commission to give particular attention as part of the uncontested hearing process. Such statement may be accompanied by any supporting documentation that the State, local government body, or Indian Tribe sees fit to provide. Any statements and supporting documentation (if any) received by the Commission using the agency's E-filing system
States, local governments, or Indian Tribes should be aware that this evidentiary hearing is separate and distinct from the NRC's contested hearing process. Issues within the scope of contentions that have been admitted or contested issues pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board or the Commission in a contested proceeding for a COL application are outside the scope of the uncontested proceeding for that COL application. In addition, although States, local governments, or Indian Tribes participating as described above may take any position they wish, or no position at all, with respect to issues regarding the COL application or the NRC staff's associated environmental review that do fall within the scope of the uncontested proceeding (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On May 25, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC” or “ICE Clear Credit”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Bid-offer width (“BOW”) is one input in ICC's end-of-day price discovery process used to determine end-of-day price levels for ICC's cleared products. ICC derives the BOW used in its end-of-day price discovery process for each clearing-eligible instrument from BOW information supplied by its Clearing Participants. Currently, ICC determines the end-of-day BOW for index products by comparing BOW data received from Clearing Participants to three pre-defined BOWs. The three pre-defined BOWs are progressively larger, such that the smallest BOW (“Regime 1”) is associated with normal market conditions; the next largest BOW (“Regime 2”) is associated with market conditions experiencing some measure of volatility; and the largest BOW (“Regime 3”) is associated with more extreme market conditions. ICC selects as the end-of-day BOW (“EOD BOW) for an index product the pre-defined BOW that is most representative of the BOWs obtained from Clearing Participants based on ICC's methodology. For single-name instruments, ICC determines the EOD BOW by using intraday BOW data received from Clearing Participants and then applies various scaling factors to arrive at an EOD BOW based on ICC's methodology. The EOD BOWs are used for mark-to-market and risk management purposes.
As currently constituted, ICC's procedures allow its Risk Department to override the EOD BOW based on the Risk Department's review and monitoring of market conditions. ICC represents that during periods of high market volatility, a significant number of BOW adjustments may need to be made, and that, if needed, such adjustments are determined and input manually.
In order to reduce this operational risk, ICC proposes to replace the manual BOW adjustment process in the Pricing Policy with an algorithm that will automatically execute the widening of selected BOWs based on the dispersion of intraday mid-level quotes, an indicator of the day's volatility.
To effectuate this automatic BOW-widening process, ICC proposed to introduce a new metric, a “Variability Level,” designed to measure the movement of intraday bid-offer mid-levels relative to the existing pre-defined BOWs described above. Under the proposed changes, where the intraday BOW mid-level falls above or below the prior day's end-of-day level by more than one pre-defined BOW, the Variability Level will be determined by a formula that takes the maximum deviation of the time series of intraday BOW mid-levels from the prior day's end-of-day level and divides it by the pre-defined BOW. Where the intraday BOW mid-level falls within one pre-defined BOW of the prior day's end-of-day level, the Variability Level would be set to 1.0, if the range of intraday mid-levels is less than the pre-defined BOW. If the range is greater than the pre-defined BOW, the Variability Level would be set to 1.2. Variability Levels
Once Variability Levels are calculated, ICC proposed to convert Variability Levels into Variability Bands, which correspond to a range of Variability Levels. Once Variability Levels and Variability Bands have been determined, ICC proposed to create market groups and assign each index instrument to one of these market groups. For example, the CDX.NA.IG and CDX.NA.HY would be assigned to the North American group. After assigning each index instrument to a market group, ICC would use the largest Variability Band of any instrument within a market group as the Variability Band for that market group as a whole. ICC refers to this Variability Band as the “Market-Proxy Variability Band.”
For single-name instruments, ICC proposes to introduce a new scaling factor that would be applied, along with other scaling factors used in the current process, to the EOD BOW, as calculated based on BOW data received from participants. The Variability Scaling Factor for single-name instruments would depend on the Market-Proxy Variability Band for the market to which each single-name instrument is assigned. A higher Market-Proxy Variability Band will result in a larger scaling factor being applied.
In addition to proposing to automate the process for increasing selected BOWs, ICC also proposed to remove a footnote from its Pricing Policy that set forth details of an intraday filtering algorithm that was planned but never implemented. Also, ICC proposed to correct inaccurate references in the Pricing Policy.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a propose rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, which modifies ICC's Pricing Policy to implement an automated process for widening the EOD BOW for index and single-name instruments is consistent with Section 17A of the Act and Rule 17Ad-22 thereunder. By automating the process for widening the EOD BOWs when necessary, the Commission believes that ICC will likely reduce the risk of error or delay in the end-of-day pricing process in connection with a potentially significant number of adjustments to BOWs that would need to be made manually and in a short period of time absent the proposed changes. Since the end-of-day BOW is an input in ICC's end-of-day price discovery process, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes will likely enhance the speed and accuracy of that process, thereby promoting the prompt clearance and settlement of derivative agreements, contracts and transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
For similar reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are also consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4) in that they are designed to reduce operational risk. Specifically, the proposed rule changes are intended to reduce ICC's operational risk in the end-of-day pricing process by establishing an automated process that will more quickly implement the widening of BOWs, if appropriate, based on a set of well-defined criteria. As a result, the risk of error that accompanies manual observation of market conditions and manual input of a potentially significant amount of adjustments in a small period of time during volatile market conditions is significantly reduced. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4) that the registered clearing agencies establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify sources of operational risk and minimize them through the development of appropriate systems, controls, and procedures; and implement systems that are reliable, resilient and secure, and have adequate, scalable capacity.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading, Interpretations and Policies .10, to include the iShares S&P 500 Index ETF (“IVV”) in the list of Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”) that are eligible for $1 strike price intervals.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading, to modify the strike setting regime for IVV options by including IVV in the list of ETFs that are eligible for $1 strike price intervals under Interpretations and Policies .10. The Exchange notes that this is a competitive filing based on an immediately effective filing recently submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime for IVV options to allow $1 strike price intervals above $200. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would make IVV options easier for investors and traders to use and more tailored to their investment needs. Additionally, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on units of the Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts Trust (“SPY”),
The SPY and IVV ETFs are identical in all material respects. The SPY and IVV ETFs are designed to roughly track the performance of the S&P 500 Index with the price of SPY and IVV designed to roughly approximate 1/10th of the price of the S&P 500 Index. Accordingly, SPY and IVV strike prices having a multiplier of $100 reflect a value roughly equal to 1/10th of the value of the S&P 500 Index. For example, if the S&P 500 Index is at 1972.56, SPY and IVV options might have a value of approximately 197.26 with a notional value of $19,726. In general, SPY and IVV options provide retail investors and traders with the benefit of trading the broad market in a manageably sized contract. As options with an ETF underlying, SPY and IVV options are listed in the same manner as equity options under the Rules.
However, under current Interpretation and Policies .05 to Rule 404, the interval between strike prices in series of options on Index-Linked Securities,
The Exchange's proposal seeks to narrow the strike price intervals to $1 for IVV options above $200, in effect matching the strike setting regime for strike intervals in IVV options below $200 and matching the strike setting regime applied to SPY options.
Currently, the S&P 500 Index is above 2000. The S&P 500 Index is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large cap U.S. equities and is widely quoted as an indicator of stock prices and investor confidence in the securities market. As a result, individual investors often use S&P 500 Index-related products to diversify their portfolios and benefit from market trends. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wider range of S&P 500 Index-based option strikes affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in IVV significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities.
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .10 to Rule 404 to allow IVV options to trade in $1 increments above a strike price of $200. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .10 to state that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in this rule, the interval of strike prices on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), iShares S&P 500 Index ETF (“IVV”), and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (“DIA”) options will be $1 or greater.” The Exchange believes that by having smaller strike intervals in IVV, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying moving less than 1%. The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Furthermore, the proposed $1 intervals would allow option trading strategies (such as, for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies using IVV weekly options), to remain viable. Considering the fact that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that IVV is above the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the artificial $200 level (above which intervals increase 500% to $5), would have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume. The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with IVV options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing IVV options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point.
The proposed strike setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect values in the underlying S&P 500 Index and allow investors and traders to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movement of the underlying. Under the current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is effectively negated. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying. The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for IVV strike prices more precisely aligned with current S&P 500 Index values. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions using IVV options.
By allowing series of IVV options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of option series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that Members
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
MIAX believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change will allow investors to more easily use IVV options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in IVV options where the strike price is greater than $200, and ensure that IVV options investors are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond to customer demand to allow IVV options to trade in $1 intervals above a $200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality.
As noted above, some ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereby options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same option class effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the arbitrary $200 strike price above which options intervals increase by 500%. This proposal remedies this situation by establishing an exception to the current interval regime for IVV options to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with the rules of other exchanges.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its Members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that IVV options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
In response to an operational crisis in the securities industry between 1967 and 1970, the Commission adopted Rule 17a-11 under the Exchange Act on July 11, 1971. Rule 17a-11 requires broker-dealers that are experiencing financial or operational difficulties to provide notice to the Commission, the broker-dealer's designated examining authority (“DEA”), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) if the broker-dealer is registered with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant. Rule 17a-11 is an integral part of the Commission's financial responsibility program which enables the Commission, a broker-dealer's DEA, and the CFTC to increase surveillance of a broker-dealer experiencing difficulties and to obtain any additional information necessary to gauge the broker-dealer's financial or operational condition.
Rule 17a-11 also requires over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives dealers and broker-dealers that are permitted to compute net capital pursuant to Appendix E to Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1 to notify the Commission when their tentative net capital drops below certain levels.
To ensure the provision of these types of notices to the Commission, Rule 17a-11 requires every national securities exchange or national securities association to notify the Commission when it learns that a member broker-dealer has failed to send a notice or transmit a report required under the Rule.
Compliance with the Rule is mandatory. The Commission will generally not publish or make available to any person notices or reports received pursuant to Rule 17a-11. The Commission believes that information obtained under Rule 17a-11 relates to a condition report prepared for the use of the Commission, other federal governmental authorities, and securities industry self-regulatory organizations responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.
The Commission expects to receive 253 notices from broker-dealers whose capital declines below certain specified levels or who are otherwise experiencing financial or operational problems and ten notices each year from national securities exchange or national securities association notifying it that a member broker-dealer has failed to send the Commission a notice or transmit a report required under the Rule. The Commission expects that it will take approximately one hour to prepare and transmit each notice.
Rule 17a-11 also requires broker-dealers engaged in securities lending or repurchase activities to either: (1) File a notice with the Commission and their DEA whenever the total money payable against all securities loaned, subject to a reverse repurchase agreement or the contract value of all securities borrowed or subject to a repurchase agreement, exceeds 2,500% of tentative net capital; or, alternatively, (2) report monthly their securities lending and repurchase activities to their DEA in a form acceptable to their DEA.
The Commission estimates that, annually, six broker-dealers will submit the monthly stock loan/borrow report. The Commission estimates each firm will spend, on average, approximately one hour per month (or twelve hours per year) of employee resources to prepare and send the report or to prepare the information for the FOCUS report (as required by the firm's DEA, if applicable). Therefore, the Commission estimates the total annual reporting burden arising from this section of the amendment will be approximately 72 hours.
Therefore, the total annual reporting burden associated with Rule 17a-11 is approximately 335 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading, Interpretations and Policies .10, to include the iShares S&P 500 Index ETF (“IVV”) in the list of Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”) that are eligible for $1 strike price intervals.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading, to modify the strike setting regime for IVV options by including IVV in the list of ETFs that are eligible for $1 strike price intervals under Interpretations and Policies .10. The Exchange notes that this is a competitive filing based on an immediately effective filing recently submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime for IVV options to allow $1 strike price intervals above $200. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would make IVV options easier for investors and traders to use and more tailored to their investment needs. Additionally, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on units of the Standard & Poor's
The SPY and IVV ETFs are identical in all material respects. The SPY and IVV ETFs are designed to roughly track the performance of the S&P 500 Index with the price of SPY and IVV designed to roughly approximate 1/10th of the price of the S&P 500 Index. Accordingly, SPY and IVV strike prices—having a multiplier of $100—reflect a value roughly equal to 1/10th of the value of the S&P 500 Index. For example, if the S&P 500 Index is at 1972.56, SPY and IVV options might have a value of approximately 197.26 with a notional value of $19,726. In general, SPY and IVV options provide retail investors and traders with the benefit of trading the broad market in a manageably sized contract. As options with an ETF underlying, SPY and IVV options are listed in the same manner as equity options under the Rules.
However, under current Interpretation and Policies .05 to Rule 404, the interval between strike prices in series of options on Index-Linked Securities,
The Exchange's proposal seeks to narrow the strike price intervals to $1 for IVV options above $200, in effect matching the strike setting regime for strike intervals in IVV options below $200 and matching the strike setting regime applied to SPY options.
Currently, the S&P 500 Index is above 2000. The S&P 500 Index is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large cap U.S. equities and is widely quoted as an indicator of stock prices and investor confidence in the securities market. As a result, individual investors often use S&P 500 Index-related products to diversify their portfolios and benefit from market trends. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wider range of S&P 500 Index-based option strikes affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in IVV significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities.
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .10 to Rule 404 to allow IVV options to trade in $1 increments above a strike price of $200. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretations and Policies .10 to state that, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in this rule, the interval of strike prices on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), iShares S&P 500 Index ETF (“IVV”), and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (“DIA”) options will be $1 or greater.” The Exchange believes that by having smaller strike intervals in IVV, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying moving less than 1%. The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Furthermore, the proposed $1 intervals would allow option trading strategies (such as, for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies using IVV weekly options), to remain viable. Considering the fact that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that IVV is above the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the artificial $200 level (above which intervals increase 500% to $5), would have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume. The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with IVV options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing IVV options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point.
The proposed strike setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect values in the underlying S&P 500 Index and allow investors and traders to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movement of the underlying. Under the current rule, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is effectively negated. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike under the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying. The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for IVV strike prices more precisely aligned with current S&P 500 Index values. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions using IVV options.
By allowing series of IVV options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of option series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that Members
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
MIAX PEARL believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
In particular, the proposed rule change will allow investors to more easily use IVV options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in IVV options where the strike price is greater than $200, and ensure that IVV options investors are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond to customer demand to allow IVV options to trade in $1 intervals above a $200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality.
As noted above, some ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereby options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same option class effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the arbitrary $200 strike price above which options intervals increase by 500%. This proposal remedies this situation by establishing an exception to the current interval regime for IVV options to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with the rules of other exchanges.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its Members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that IVV options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
On May 23, 2017
Prior to filing Amendment No. 2, the Participants filed the CAT NMS Plan with the Commission,
The Plan specified that, in establishing the funding of the Company, the Operating Committee shall establish “a tiered fee structure in which the fees charged to: (i) CAT Reporters that are Execution Venues, including ATSs, are based upon the level of market share; (ii) Industry Members' non-ATS activities are based upon message traffic; and (iii) the CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable (where, for these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration
The Participants submitted this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan to establish the CAT Fees to be charged to themselves, as Execution Venues.
The Plan specifies that, in establishing the funding of the Company, the Operating Committee shall establish “a tiered fee structure in which the fees charged to: (i) CAT Reporters that are Execution Venues, including ATSs, are based upon the level of market share; (ii) Industry Members' non-ATS activities are based upon message traffic; and (iii) the CAT Reporters with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable (where, for these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether Execution Venues and/or Industry Members.”
To establish the CAT Fees permitted by the Plan, the Participants submitted Amendment No. 2. As noted above, Amendment No. 2 adopted fees applicable to the Participants, as Execution Venues, which are described below.
Amendment No. 2 establishes fixed fees to be paid by Execution Venues
Under Amendment No. 2, each Equity Execution Venue will be ranked by market share and assigned to one of two tiers that have been predefined by percentages (the “Equity Execution Venue Percentages”).
The following table sets forth the specific Equity Execution Venue Percentages and Equity Execution Recovery Allocations:
Amendment No. 2 establishes fixed fees to be paid by Execution Venues depending on the Listed Options market share of that Execution Venue. Market share for Execution Venues will be calculated by contract volume.
The following table sets forth the specific Options Execution Venue Percentages and Options Execution Venue Recovery Allocations:
The Participants stated that market share for Execution Venues will be sourced from data reported to the CAT System after the commencement of CAT reporting.
Amendment No. 2 describes the fixed fees to be established by the Industry Member Fee Filings to be payable by Industry Members, based on message traffic.
The following table sets forth the specific Industry Member Percentages and Industry Member Recovery Allocations:
The Participants explained that, prior to the start of CAT reporting, “message traffic” will be comprised of historical equity and equity options orders, cancels and quotes provided by each exchange and FINRA over the previous three months.
In determining the cost allocation between Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and Execution Venues, the Participants stated that the Operating Committee decided that 75% of total costs recovered will be allocated to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% will be allocated to Execution Venues.
The Participants explained that the sum of the CAT Fees is designed to recover the total costs of building and operating the CAT. They stated that the Operating Committee has estimated overall CAT costs—including development and operational costs, third-party support costs (including historic legal fees, consulting fees, and audit fees), insurance costs, and operational reserve costs—to be $50,700,000 in total for the year beginning November 21, 2016.
For Equity Execution Venues:
For Options Execution Venues:
For Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs):
The Operating Committee will assign fee tiers every three months based on market share or message traffic, as applicable, from the prior three months.
The Participants noted that Section 11.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Operating Committee shall review such fee schedule on at least an annual basis and shall make any changes to such fee schedule that it deems appropriate.”
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(i) under Regulation NMS,
While no comments were received on Amendment No. 2 to the CAT NMS Plan, the Commission received a number of comment letters on the Industry Member Fee Filings, and a response to such comments from the Participants. Because the text of the Industry Member Fee Filings is substantially similar to this Amendment No. 2, the Commission believes the comment letters are relevant to this Order and has summarized the comments on the Industry Member Fee Filings below.
One commenter asks whether the CAT is a “worthwhile endeavor,”
In response to the comment questioning the utility of the CAT, the Participants explain that they are obligated to build the CAT by Rule 613.
One commenter challenges the imposition of a CAT Fee on Industry Members, arguing that the Participants have not provided justification for imposing such a fee and that the Industry Members should not be obligated to pay any costs or expenses other than the direct costs to build and operate the CAT.
In their response, the Participants state that Rule 613 of Regulation NMS (“Rule 613”)
Three commenters argue that the funding decisions would have benefited from greater involvement from Industry Members.
In response to the comment that the funding model should have been the result of greater industry collaboration, the Participants assert that market participants were given the opportunity to comment on the funding model through the CAT NMS Plan Notice
Three commenters raise concerns about Participant conflicts of interest in setting the CAT fees.
Another commenter argues that the Participants have a clear conflict of interest when setting their own cost allocation.
In their response, the Participants explain that it is unnecessary to require an independent third party to establish the CAT Fees, in part because the funding of the CAT is designed to protect against any conflicts of interest in the Participants' ability to set fees, through the operation of the CAT on a break-even basis (such that any fees collected would be used toward CAT costs and an appropriate reserve, and that surpluses would offset fees in future payment).
In response to the comment asking about the status of the Company's application to be organized as a tax-exempt business league, the Participants state that the Company filed its IRS application on May 5, 2017, and that the application is currently pending. The Participants explain that if the IRS does not approve the application, the Company will operate as set forth in the Plan, but may be required to pay taxes. They believe that it is premature to include a tax contingency plan in the proposals.
Several commenters raise concerns about the proposed allocation of CAT fees.
In response to comments regarding the allocation of CAT costs, the Participants first state that the 88% figure cited in the first commenter's letter is the cost broker-dealers will incur directly to comply with the reporting requirements of the CAT, not the CAT Fees.
In addition, the Participants explain that the Operating Committee believed that the 75%/25% division of total CAT costs between Industry Members and Execution Venues maintained the greatest level of comparability, considering affiliations among or between CAT Reporters.
Two commenters believe that the proposed tiering methodology is inequitable and unreasonable.
In response to the comments that the tiering methodology is inequitable and unreasonable because Participants will be assessed fees based on market share, rather than message traffic, the Participants explain that charging broker-dealers based on message traffic is the most equitable means to establish their fees because message traffic is a significant cost driver of CAT. Accordingly, the Participants believe that it is appropriate to use message traffic to assign fee tiers to broker-dealers.
In response to a commenter's concern that the Participants only established two tiers for themselves, the Participants state that the CAT NMS Plan permits them to establish only two tiers and that two tiers were sufficient to distinguish between the Execution Venues.
In response to the comment asking why it makes sense to charge a fixed fee for all market participants within a single tier and questioning the results of fixed-fee tiering, the Participants explain that the proposed approach “helps ensure that fees are equitably allocated among similarly situated CAT Reporters, thereby lessening the impact of CAT fees on smaller firms,”
One commenter believes that the proposed fees will be unsustainable for small options market-makers.
Additionally, the commenter believes that charging Industry Members on the basis of message traffic will disproportionately impact options market-makers because, unlike for equities, message traffic would include options strikes and series.
In their response, the Participants explain that since message traffic is a major cost component for CAT, they believe it is an appropriate basis for assigning Industry Member fee tiers.
One commenter objects to the proposed fees for ATSs, which are the same fees as Participants under the Industry Member Fee Filings, as unreasonable, because it believes the fees would result a significant burden on small ATSs and a barrier to entry for new ATSs that would not similarly apply to the Participants.
Another commenter objects to the Industry Member Fee Filings' treatment of smaller Equity Execution Venues (such as low volume ATSs), opining that such treatment is unfair and anti-competitive.
In response to the comment noting that charging ATSs the same CAT fees as Execution Venues would result in a significant burden on smaller ATSs and act as a barrier to entry, the Participants reiterate that two fee tiers for Execution Venues were appropriate because adding tiers would “compromise the comparability of fees between Execution Venues and Industry Members with the most CAT-related activity. . . [C]reating additional tiers could have unintended consequences on the funding model such as creating greater discrepancies between the tiers.”
In response to the comment recommending the addition of a tier for small ATSs executing in the aggregate less than 1% of NMS stocks, the Participants explain that two fee tiers for Execution Venues were appropriate because adding tiers would “compromise the comparability of fees between Execution Venues and Industry Members with the most CAT-related activity.”
One commenter objects to the Industry Member Fee Filings' treatment of Execution Venues for OTC Equity securities, opining that it is unfair and anti-competitive.
In their response, the Participants state that the CAT NMS Plan provides for the use of share volume to calculate market share for Execution Venues that execute transactions in NMS Stocks or OTC Equity Securities.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
The Commission believes that Amendment No. 2 raises questions as to whether the allocation of the total CAT costs recovered between and among Industry Members and Execution Venues is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory under Section 6 and Section 15A of the Act. Moreover, the Commission does not believe that the Participants have provided an adequate justification to support a determination that the allocation of 75% of total CAT costs recovered to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% to Execution Venues is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory or that the fees will not result in an undue or inappropriate burden on competition. The Commission also does not believe that the Participants have adequately explained that the CAT Fees are consistent with the funding principles set forth in the CAT NMS Plan, which require that the allocation of “costs among Participants and Industry Members . . . is consistent with the [ ] Act taking into account . . . distinctions in the securities trading operations of Participants and Industry Members and their relative impact upon the Company resources and operations”
Further, the Commission believes that Amendment No. 2 raises questions as to whether the determination to place Execution Venues for OTC Equity Securities in the same tier structure as Execution Venues for NMS Stocks will result in an undue or inappropriate burden on competition under Section 6 and Section 15A. Specifically, the decision to group Execution Venues for OTC Equity Securities and NMS Stocks in one tier structure raises questions about the effect on competition, recognizing that the application of share volume may lead to different outcomes as applied to OTC Equity Securities and NMS Stocks. Similarly, the decision to place Execution Venues representing less than 1% of NMS market share in the same tier structure as other Equity Execution Venues raises questions about burdens on competition. The Commission believes that the Participants have not provided adequate justification to support a conclusion that their tier structure will not result in an undue or inappropriate burden on competition.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the procedures provided by Rule 608(b)(2) of Regulation NMS
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4702 (Order Types) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) to enhance the Nasdaq Closing Cross by permitting members to submit LOC Orders until immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET subject to certain conditions, and to make other changes related to Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4702 (Order Types) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) to enhance the Nasdaq Closing Cross by permitting members to submit Limit On Close (“LOC”) Orders
The Nasdaq Closing Cross provides a transparent auction process that determines a single price for the close. The price determined by the Nasdaq Closing Cross is also the Nasdaq Official Closing Price for stocks that participate in the cross. Members can submit LOC Orders, Market On Close (“MOC”) Orders,
The Nasdaq Closing Cross was designed to create a robust close that allows for efficient price discovery through a transparent auction process. To permit additional interest to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, and increase the quality of the cross, the Exchange proposes to allow LOC Orders to be entered until immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET in certain circumstances. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to allow LOC Orders to be entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET if there is a Current Reference Price in the first Order Imbalance Indicator disseminated at or after 3:50 p.m. ET (“First Reference Price”).
While all LOC Orders must be entered with a limit price, the Exchange proposes to re-price LOC Orders entered after the current 3:50 p.m. ET cutoff to the less aggressive of the order's limit price or the First Reference Price in order to prevent these orders from having a significant impact on the price established by the Nasdaq Closing Cross. Specifically, an LOC Order entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET will be accepted at its limit price, unless its limit price is higher (lower) than the First Reference Price for an LOC Order to buy (sell), in which case the LOC Order will be re-priced to the First Reference Price; provided that if the First Reference Price is not at a permissible minimum increment of $0.01 or $0.0001, as applicable, the First Reference Price will be rounded (i) to the nearest permitted minimum increment (with midpoint prices being rounded up) if there is no imbalance, (ii) up if there is a buy imbalance, or (iii) down if there is a sell imbalance.
In addition to the Nasdaq Closing Cross described above, the Exchange operates an LULD Closing Cross and Primary Contingency Procedures that provide alternative processes for executing closing trades on Nasdaq.
The Exchange also proposes to make two changes with respect to Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders: (1) To clarify handling of certain order types that are not eligible to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross as Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders, and to add Market Maker Peg Orders to that list; and (2) to remove language regarding conversion of Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and the time of the Nasdaq Closing Cross. A Closing Cross/Extended Hours Order is an order that is flagged to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross and entered with a time-in-force that continues after the cross. Such orders are typically treated as LOC Orders for participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross and then operate pursuant to their order type and attributes.
Today, Rule 4702(b)(12)(B) states that, following the Nasdaq Closing Cross, a Closing Cross/Extended Hours Order may not operate as a Post-Only Order, Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, Supplemental Order, Retail Order, or RPI Order. As written, this rule could be interpreted as implying that a member could enter these order types with an on-close instruction and would participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross and thereafter not be eligible for extended hours trading. In fact, although these orders are eligible to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross when entered on the continuous book, Post-Only Orders, Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders, Supplemental Orders, and Retail Orders, cannot be entered with a flag designating an on-close instruction, and therefore cannot operate as a Closing Cross/Extended Hours Order. Furthermore, RPI Orders are not currently offered on the Exchange. The Exchange therefore proposes to clarify the rule so that it is more transparent to members that a Post-Only Order, Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, Supplemental Order, or Retail Order, may not operate as a Closing Cross/Extend Hours Order. In addition, the rule states that, in the case of a Market Maker Peg Order entered prior to 3:50 p.m. ET that is also designated to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, the price of the Order for purposes of operating as an LOC Order will be established on entry and will not thereafter be pegged until after the completion of the Nasdaq Closing Cross. While this is consistent with current system behavior, the Exchange no longer believes that Market Maker Peg Orders should be eligible to be entered with a flag designating an on-close instruction, and thereby designated as Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders, similar to the other order types mentioned above. Furthermore, members do not typically enter these orders with such an instruction. The Exchange therefore proposes to specify that a Market Maker Peg Order may not operate as a Closing Cross/Extended Hours Order.
Rule 4702(b)(12)(B) also states that a Closing Cross/Extended Hours Order that is entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and the time of the Nasdaq Closing Cross is (i) rejected if it has been assigned a Pegging Attribute, (ii) treated as an IO Order and then entered into the System after the completion of the Nasdaq Closing Cross if entered through RASH, QIX, or FIX but not assigned a Pegging Attribute, and (iii) treated as an IO Order and cancelled after the Nasdaq Closing Cross if entered through OUCH or FLITE. The Exchange now believes that members would be better served by functionality that does not convert these Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders to IO Orders and therefore proposes to remove the language in (ii) and (iii) above from its rules.
As described in other parts of this filing, the Exchange disseminates an Order Imbalance Indicator beginning at 3:50 p.m. ET that includes several data elements to provide information about the Nasdaq Closing Cross to market participants. These data elements include the Current Reference Price and the number of shares that are paired at the Current Reference Price. Currently, the rule states that the Current Reference Price is based on the single price that is at or within the current Nasdaq Market Center best bid and offer at which the maximum number of shares of MOC, LOC, IO and Close Eligible Interest can be paired (with certain tie-breakers if multiple prices meet this criterion). In addition, the rule states that the paired shares data element indicates the number of shares represented by MOC, LOC, IO and Close Eligible Interest that are paired at the Current Reference Price. The Exchange notes, however, that the Order Imbalance Indicator has never included Close Eligible Interest in determining the Current Reference Price or the number of paired shares at that price. The Exchange therefore proposes to amend this rule to state that the Exchange will disseminate a Current Reference Price based on the single price that is at or within the current Nasdaq Market Center best bid and offer at which the maximum number of shares of MOC, LOC, and IO orders can be paired, and a paired share count based on the number of shares represented by MOC, LOC, and IO Orders that are paired at the Current Reference Price. With these changes, Rule 4754(a)(7)(B) will correctly reflect the information disseminated to market participants. In addition, the Exchange notes that Rule 4752(a)(2)(B) contains a similar error in including Open Eligible Interest in the Current Reference Price calculation and paired share count for the Nasdaq Opening Cross. The Exchange therefore proposes to correct that rule as well. With these changes, Rule 4752(a)(2)(B) will correctly indicate that the Exchange will disseminate a Current Reference Price based on the single price that is at or within the current Nasdaq Market Center best bid and offer at which the maximum number of shares of MOO, LOO, OIO, and Early Market Hours orders can be paired, and a paired share count based on the number of shares represented by MOO, LOO, OIO, and Early Market Hours orders that are paired at the Current Reference Price.
Finally, the Order Imbalance Indicator includes the size of any Imbalance. Currently, Imbalance is defined in Rule 4754(a)(2) as “the number of shares of buy or sell MOC or LOC Orders that cannot be matched with other MOC or LOC, Close Eligible Interest or IO Order shares at a particular price at any given time.” Although the rule states that
The Exchange proposes to launch the functionality described in this proposed rule change in either Q3 or Q4 2017 pursuant to a symbol-by-symbol rollout. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of this functionality and the symbol rollout in an Equity Trader Alert issued to members prior to the launch date.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the introduction of the proposed LOC Order functionality will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as this proposed change is designed to increase the quality of the Nasdaq Closing Cross. The Nasdaq Closing Cross provides an industry-leading, transparent price discovery process that aggregates a large pool of liquidity, across a variety of order types, in a single venue. The Exchange believes that increasing participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross by offering the proposed LOC Order enhancement will further promote price discovery and participation at the close by allowing additional priced interest to be submitted for the close. In addition to providing a mechanism for members to execute closing interest, the Nasdaq Closing Cross also generates a closing price that is used widely throughout the industry for a variety of purposes including index and mutual fund valuations. The Exchange therefore believes that it is important to ensure that the Nasdaq Closing Cross provides the best possible experience for members and investors that rely on the cross and the closing prices it generates.
Allowing members to enter LOC Orders later in the trading day will enhance the Nasdaq Closing Cross by increasing participation, and reducing the frequency of Imbalances that may increase volatility of the closing cross price. Currently, members that have interest to execute at the closing price have more limited options in submitting that interest after 3:50 p.m. ET when the time window for entering MOC and LOC Orders has closed. Specifically, these members must either submit IO Orders, which do not trade if there is no Imbalance and do not maintain price priority since they are continuously re-priced to the best bid or offer, or must submit regular orders to the continuous book, where they may execute before the cross begins. Member feedback has indicated that a longer period for the entry of LOC Orders would be beneficial for firms that participate in the close. The proposed functionality would allow firms to maintain price standing when providing liquidity intended for the Nasdaq Closing Cross, allowing potentially better trading outcomes for firms, and thereby encouraging additional interest to participate in the cross. The proposed rule change is therefore likely to improve price discovery and the stability of the Nasdaq Closing Cross to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed 3:55 p.m. ET cutoff for submitting LOC Orders appropriately balances the need for members to submit interest for the Nasdaq Closing Cross later in the trading day with the need for a stable cross.
Since the proposed functionality is designed to reduce Imbalances and create a more efficient cross, the Exchange will only accept these orders where there is a First Reference Price. As previously explained, the presence of a First Reference Price indicates that there is matched interest that is eligible to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross. The Exchange believes that this is when it is most helpful to allow additional interest intended for the cross as new LOC Orders can be used to decrease Imbalances and facilitate a more efficient closing auction to the benefit of members and investors. The proposed functionality has been designed to reduce Imbalances that may exist during the closing process, and is not intended to create Imbalances where there is no interest that is eligible to participate in the cross. Thus, the Exchange believes that accepting LOC Orders between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET only when there is a First Reference Price is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to allow members to enter LOC Orders until immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET where market conditions suggest that allowing additional interest to participate may serve to reduce Imbalances and increase the quality of the Nasdaq Closing Cross. Furthermore, if members wish to have their LOC Orders participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross regardless of whether there is a First Reference Price they can continue to enter that interest prior to 3:50 p.m. ET.
To ensure more price stability in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, the Exchange is also proposing to re-price LOC Orders entered after 3:50 p.m. ET to the First Reference Price in circumstances where the order's limit price is more aggressive than the First Reference Price. The Exchange believes that re-pricing LOC Orders entered after the regular cutoff is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade because the proposed functionality is designed to reduce Imbalances without having a significant impact on the price determined by the cross. At the time it is disseminated, the First Reference Price represents the price, bounded by the continuous market, where the maximum number of on-close shares can be paired. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to re-price to this price, provided that it is within the order's limit price. This will allow orders to coalesce around this price, creating additional liquidity, and potentially reducing Imbalances. Furthermore, to the extent that members do not want their LOC Orders re-priced, they can continue to submit LOC Orders before the 3:50 p.m. cutoff. Thus, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to re-price LOC Orders
The Exchange also believes that it is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors to allow LOC Orders entered after the regular 3:50 p.m. ET cutoff to participate in the LULD Closing Cross and Primary Contingency Procedures. The LULD Closing Cross is employed by the Exchange when a Trading Pause is triggered at or after 3:50 p.m. ET and before 4:00 p.m. ET, and today includes LOC Orders submitted prior to the current 3:50 p.m. ET cutoff. With the proposed changes to allow members to submit LOC Orders later in the trading day, LOC Orders entered after the regular 3:50 p.m. ET cutoff will also be permitted to trade in the LULD Closing Cross provided that they have been entered into the system and placed on the book prior to the pause.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes related to Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. With respect to handling of Market Maker Peg Orders entered with an on-close instruction, the Exchange believes that the proposed functionality, which is to reject the order, is more consistent with member expectations. The Exchange does not believe that members want functionality that allows Market Maker Peg Orders to be entered with a flag designating an on-close instruction and which would therefore operate as Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders. Furthermore, this is consistent with the Exchange's review of this order type, which indicates that members enter this combination very rarely. Market Maker Peg Orders were designed to assist members in meeting their quoting obligations and not as a means of submitting interest flagged with an on-close instruction. The Exchange also believes that the other changes to this rule to clarify that a Post-Only Order, Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, Supplemental Order, or Retail Order, may not operate as a Closing Cross/Extend Hours Order will benefit members by increasing transparency with respect to order handling. No changes are being made to the trading system to implement this change; this change merely clarifies current functionality offered on the Exchange. Finally, with respect to Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and the time of the Nasdaq Closing Cross, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors to no longer offer functionality that converts these orders to IO Orders. With the proposed changes for LOC Orders, members will be able to enter LOC Orders up until 3:55 p.m. ET instead of the current 3:50 p.m. ET cutoff. After 3:55 p.m. ET, the Exchange believes that members would rather have their Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders rejected like other LOC Orders rather than treated as IO Orders, which do not trade if there is no Imbalance and do not maintain price priority since they are continuously re-priced to the best bid or offer. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes related to the information disseminated in the Order Imbalance Indicator for both the closing and opening processes is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because these changes more accurately reflect the information currently disseminated. Today, the Order Imbalance Indicator for the Nasdaq Closing Cross does not include Close Eligible Interest in its calculation of the Current Reference Price or the paired share count. Similarly, the Order Imbalance Indicator for the Nasdaq Opening Cross does not include Open Eligible Interest for either of those data elements. In each case, the Exchange believes that it is more appropriate to exclude Close or Open Eligible Interest from the Current Reference Price calculation and paired share count disseminated to market participants as these orders may be executed in the continuous market before the closing or opening auction commences. The Exchange believes that updating its rule to accurately reflect the information disseminated to market participants will increase transparency surrounding these processes, and is therefore designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade. In addition, with respect to the definition of Imbalance, the Exchange notes that, similar to the Current Reference Price and paired share count, the Imbalance calculation does not include Close Eligible Interest for the Nasdaq Closing Cross or Open Eligible Interest for the Nasdaq Opening Cross. For the same reasons described above, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to not include interest that could be executed in the continuous market prior to the closing or opening auction in the Imbalance calculation. The Exchange believes that updating these rules will increase transparency to the benefit of members and other market participants, and is therefore designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is enhancing the Nasdaq Closing Cross to benefit members and investors, and does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any significant burden on competition. Today, the Nasdaq Closing Cross provides a transparent auction process for executing member interest at the close. The proposed rule change is designed to allow additional interest to participate in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, and thereby provide a more efficient process for executing closing interest, and enhancing price discovery during
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to reflect a change in the size of a Creation Unit applicable to shares of the PIMCO Low Duration Active Exchange-Traded Fund from 50,000 Shares to at least 20,000 Shares. The Fund is currently listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Commission has approved a proposed rule change relating to listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (“Shares”) of the PIMCO Low Duration Active Exchange-Traded Fund (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600,
According to the Registration Statement and the Prior Releases, Shares of the Fund that trade in the secondary market are created at net asset value (“NAV”) by Authorized Participants only in block-size Creation Units of 50,000 Shares or multiples thereof.
The Exchange proposes to reflect a change in the size of a Creation Unit from 50,000 Shares to at least 20,000 Shares.
The Adviser represents that the proposed change to reduce the size of a Creation Unit, as described above, is consistent with the Fund's investment objective, and will further assist the Adviser to achieve such investment objective. Except for the change noted above, all other representations made in the Prior Releases remain unchanged.
The Adviser represents that the investment objective of the Fund is not changing.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that the change to the size of a Creation Unit to at least 20,000 Shares will not adversely impact investors or Exchange trading. In addition, a reduction in the size of a Creation Unit may provide potential benefits to investors by facilitating additional creation and redemption activity in the Shares, thereby potentially resulting in increased secondary market trading activity, tighter bid/ask spreads and narrower premiums or discounts to NAV.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change, because of the potential increase in secondary market trading activity that may result from a decrease in the Creation Unit size for Shares of the Fund, will enhance competition among issues of exchange-traded funds that invest in fixed income securities.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before September 25, 2017.
Send all comments to Gina Beyer, Supervisory Administrative Specialist, Office of Disaster Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Gina Beyer, Supervisory Administrative Specialist, Disaster Assistance,
The requested information is submitted by small businesses or not-for-profit organizations who seek federal financial assistance (loans) to help in their recovery from declared disaster. SBA uses the information to determine the eligibility and creditworthiness of these loan applicants.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(1)
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before September 25, 2017.
Send all comments to Gina Beyer, Supervisory Administrative Specialist, Office of Disaster Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Gina Beyer, Supervisory Administrative Specialist, Disaster Assistance,
The requested information is submitted by homeowners or renters when applying for federal financial assistance (loans) to help in their recovery from a declared disaster. SBA uses the information to determine the creditworthiness of these loan applicants, as well as their eligibility for financial assistance.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections, and one new information collection.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than August 28, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
The design for POD will include implementation and evaluation activities designed to answer seven central research questions:
• What are the impacts of the two POD benefit designs on beneficiaries' earnings, SSDI benefits, and total earnings and benefit income?
• Is POD attractive to beneficiaries? Do they remain engaged over time?
• How were the POD offset policies implemented, and what operational, systemic, or contextual factors facilitated or posed challenges to administering the offset?
• How successful were POD and SSA in making timely benefit adjustments, and what factors affected timeliness positively or negatively?
• How do the impacts of the POD offset policies vary with beneficiary characteristics?
• What are the costs and benefits of the POD benefit designs relative to current law, and what are the implications for the SSDI trust fund?
• What are the implications of the POD findings for national policy proposals that would include a SSDI benefit offset?
The public survey data collections have four components—a process analysis, a participation analysis, an impact analysis, and a cost-benefit analysis. The data collections are the primary source for data to measure the effects of the benefit offset on SSDI beneficiaries' work efforts and earnings. Ultimately, these data will benefit researchers, policy analysts, policy makers, SSA, and the state vocational rehabilitation agencies in a wide range of program areas. There are four targeted outcomes for SSDI beneficiaries under POD: (1) Increased employment and earnings; (2) decreased benefits payments; (3) increased total income; and (4) impacts on other related outcomes (for example, health status and quality of life). Additionally, four outcomes of interest for system changes include: (1) Reduction in overpayments; (2) enhanced program integrity; (3) stronger culture of self-sufficiency; and (4) improved SSDI trust fund balance. Respondents are SSDI beneficiaries, who will provide written consent before agreeing to participate in the study and before we randomly assign them to one of the study treatment groups.
The burden in the chart below differs from the burden SSA reported in our last published notice for this collection (April 18, 2017, at 82 FR 18335). The number of burden hours decreased because we removed questions from the information collection, resulting in a lower response time and an accompanying decrease in burden hours.
• Reporting Requirements—Each IAR agency agrees to:
○ (a) Notify SSA of receipt of an authorization for initial claims or cases they are appealing, and (b) submit a copy of that authorization either through a manual or electronic process;
○ (c) inform SSA of the amount of reimbursement;
○ (d) submit a written request for dispute resolution on a determination;
○ (e) notify SSA of interim assistance paid (using the SSA-8125 or the SSA-L8125-F6);
○ (f) inform SSA of any deceased claimants who participate in the IAR program and;
○ (g) review and sign an agreement with SSA.
• Recordkeeping Requirements (h & i)—The IAR agencies agree to retain all notices, agreement, authorizations, and accounting forms for the period defined in the IAR agreement for the purposes of SSA verifying transactions covered under the agreement.
• Third Party Disclosure Requirements (j)—Each participating IAR agency agrees to send written notices from the IAR agency to the recipient regarding payment amounts and appeal rights.
• Periodic Review of Agency Accounting Process (k-m)—The IAR agency makes the IAR accounting records of paid cases available for SSA review and verification. SSA conducts reviews either onsite or through the mail of the authorization forms, notices to the claimant and accounting forms. Upon completion of the review, SSA provides a written report of findings to the IAR agency director.
The respondents are State IAR officers.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 82 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On April 21, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 82 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 18818). The public comment period ended on May 22, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
As of May 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2014-0005; FMCSA-2014-0297; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305. Their exemptions are effective as of May 7, 2017, and will expire on May 7, 2019.
As of May 13, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 74 FR 7097; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 75 FR 25919; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 77942; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 28125; 77 FR 36338; 78 FR 18667; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 24300; 80 FR 18696):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0024. Their exemptions are effective as of May 13, 2017, and will expire on May 13, 2019.
As of May 19, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR 18824; 76 FR 29024; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 22602; 79 FR 24298; 80 FR 20558):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2013-0022. Their exemptions are effective as of May 19, 2017, and will expire on May 19, 2019.
As of May 20, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR 16912; 78 FR 29431; 80 FR 20559):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0024. Their exemptions are effective as of May 20, 2017, and will expire on May 20, 2019.
As of May 27, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (80 FR 22773; 80 FR 45573):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0305. Their exemptions are effective as of May 27, 2017, and will expire on May 27, 2019.
As of May 31, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 46016; 67 RF 57267; 68 FR 13360; 69 FR 62741; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 62147; 72 FR 12665; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 73 FR 61925; 74 FR 9329; 74 FR 15586; 74 FR 19270; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 17483; 76 FR 18824; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 29024; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 26106; 79 FR 24298; 80 FR 26320):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0057. Their exemptions are effective as of May 31, 2017, and will expire on May 31, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. On March 16, 2017, FMCSA published a
Please send your comments by August 28, 2017. OMB must receive your comments by this date to act quickly on the ICR.
All comments should reference Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2017-0046. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
Vivian Oliver, Lead Transportation Specialist, Office of Registration and Safety Information, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-366-2974. Email Address:
Section 14123 of title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) requires that the Secretary of Transportation collect annual financial reports from certain for-hire motor carriers of passengers. All Class I for-hire motor carriers of passengers, carriers with gross annual operating revenues of $5 million or more, are required to complete and file a Motor Carrier Annual Report Form MP-1 for Motor Carriers of Passengers (Form MP-1).
The data collected will be available to users in its original form. The data are not used by the Department of Transportation, and, based on a comment to a proposed rule finalized on December 17, 2013 (78 FR 76241), the data are no longer used by trucking associations. Insurance companies, consultants, law firms, academia, trade publications and others may use the data to assess industry growth and its impact on the economy, to identify industry changes that may affect national transportation, and to monitor company financial stability. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce uses the data to inform the national annual input-output and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates. BEA uses the data to prepare estimates of industry output and provide details on inputs to supplement the information on motor carriers of passengers collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.
In response to the March 16, 2017 60-day
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 49 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on June 27, 2017. The exemptions expire on June 27, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On May 26, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 49 individuals and requested comments from the public (82 FR 24438). The public comment period closed on June 26, 2017, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 49 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 49 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 33 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past five years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the May 26, 2017,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 49 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 127 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0155; FMCSA-2011-0125; FMCSA-2011-0144; FMCSA-2011-0145; FMCSA-2013-0019; FMCSA-2013-0181; FMCSA-2015-0062; FMCSA-2015-0063 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 127 individuals listed in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
This notice addresses 127 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 127 drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each exemption for a
The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of August and are discussed below.
As of August 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 35 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 37719; 80 FR 59223):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2015-0062. Their exemptions are effective as of August 1, 2017, and will expire on August 1, 2019.
As of August 3, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 28097; 74 FR 38481):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2009-0155. Their exemptions are effective as of August 3, 2017, and will expire on August 3, 2019.
As of August 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 34127; 76 FR 47288):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0125. Their exemptions are effective as of August 4, 2017, and will expire on August 4, 2019.
As of August 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following ten individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 34127; 76 FR 47288):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0144. Their exemptions are effective as of August 5, 2017, and will expire on August 5, 2019.
As of August 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 43 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 41550; 80 FR 59229):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2015-0063. Their exemptions are effective as of August 15, 2017, and will expire on August 15, 2019.
As of August 16, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 14 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 32704; 78 FR 50140):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0019. Their exemptions are effective as of August 16, 2017, and will expire on August 16, 2019.
As of August 29, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 40439; 76 FR 53707):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0145. Their exemptions are effective as of August 29, 2017, and will expire on August 29, 2019.
As of August 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Lloyd K. Steinkamp (WV) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 38435; 78 FR 63294).
This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0181. The exemption is effective as of August 16, 2017, and will expire on August 16, 2019.
Each of the 127 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.
These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the 127 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2009-0155; FMCSA-2011-0125; FMCSA-2011-0144; FMCSA-2011-0145; FMCSA-2013-0019; FMCSA-2013-0181; FMCSA-2015-0062; FMCSA-2015-0063.
FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by August 28, 2017.
FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 127 individuals from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its denial of 111 applications from individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal diabetes standard applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the diabetes requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal diabetes standard for a renewable two year period if it finds “such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 111 individual exemption requests on their merits and made a determination that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 17 applicants met the diabetes requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and do not need an exemption:
The following 43 applicants were not operating CMVs in interstate commerce:
The following 14 applicants have had more than one hypoglycemic episode requiring hospitalization or the assistance of others, or has had one such episode but has not had one year of stability following the episode:
The following two applicants had other medical conditions making the applicant otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations:
The following four applicants did not have endocrinologists willing to make statements that they are able to operate CMVs from a diabetes standpoint:
Sebastian H. Thomas (ME) is unable or has not demonstrated with willingness to properly monitor and manage his diabetes whether by a personal decision or medical inability.
The following three applicants have peripheral neuropathy or circulatory insufficiency of the extremities likely to interfere with the ability to operate a CMV:
The following six applicants did not meet the minimum age criteria outlined in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) which states that an individual must be at least 21 years old to operate a CMV in interstate commerce:
The following 21 applicants were exempt from the diabetes standard:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 47 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0038 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 47 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Alicea, 57, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Alicea understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Alicea meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut.
Mr. Boyatt, 63, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boyatt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boyatt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Braun, 59, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist
Mr. Brede, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brede understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brede meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Butler, 60, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Butler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Butler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Campbell, 60, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Campbell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Campbell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Carruth, 67, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carruth understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carruth meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.
Mr. Carte, 62, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carte understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carte meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Carter, 47, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carter understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Crawford, 50, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Crawford understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crawford meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Duvall, 33, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Duvall understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Duvall meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Vermont.
Mr. Evans, 52, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no
Mr. Foder, 64, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Foder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Foder meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Fowler, 49, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fowler understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fowler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Connecticut.
Mr. Greene, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Greene understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Greene meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Ms. Grimes, 42, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Grimes understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Grimes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Hoffman, 66, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hoffman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hoffman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Holmstrom, 56, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holmstrom understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holmstrom meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Holt, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Jennings, 31, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jennings understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jennings meets the
Mr. Johnson, 65, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johnson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Ms. Johnson, 22, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Johnson understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Arizona.
Mr. King, 44, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. King understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. King meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Kronbeck, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kronbeck understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kronbeck meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Lane, 65, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lane understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lane meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.
Mr. Leite, 31, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leite understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leite meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Georgia.
Mr. Madden, 44, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Madden understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Madden meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McCuddin, 26, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCuddin understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCuddin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Mitchell, 37, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
Mr. Mooney, 53, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mooney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mooney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Mumaw, 57, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mumaw understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mumaw meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from West Virginia.
Mr. Noa, 67, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Noa understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Noa meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
Mr. Peirce, 23, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Peirce understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Peirce meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Pira, 43, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pira understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pira meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington.
Mr. Racy, 48, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Racy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Racy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Rowean, 52, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rowean understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rowean meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Schmid, 64, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schmid understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schmid meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Connecticut.
Mr. Schultz, 72, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schultz understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schultz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Silonski, 38, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Silonski understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Silonski meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from New York.
Mr. Simon, 45, has had ITDM since 1975. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Simon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Simon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Smith, 49, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smith understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Stumpff, 55, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stumpff understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stumpff meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Vasquez, 63, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vasquez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vasquez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Verly, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Verly understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Verly meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.
Mr. Welch, 64, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Welch understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Welch meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.
Mr. Wiggins, 36, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wiggins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
Mr. Woitel, 29, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Woitel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Woitel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C.. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its denial of 140 applications from individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal vision standard for a renewable two year period if it finds “such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 140 individual exemption requests on their
The following three applicants do not have sufficient driving experience over the past three years under normal highway operating conditions (limited hours):
The following 36 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:
The following 13 applicants did not have three years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:
The following eight applicants did not have three years of recent experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:
The following five applicants did not have sufficient driving experience during the past three years under normal highway operating conditions (gaps in driving record):
William J. O'Neill (NJ) contributed to accident(s) in which the applicant was operating a CMV, which is a disqualifying offense.
The following 22 applicants were denied for multiple reasons:
The following seven applicants have not had stable vision for the preceding three year period:
The following eight applicants met the current federal vision standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the current regulations for vision:
The following 32 applicants will not be driving interstate, intrastate commerce, or are not required to carry a DOT medical card:
The following five applicants perform transportation for the Federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces that it is considering submitting the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment on a revision to the Information Collection (IC) titled
We must receive your comments on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2005-23151 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-4001; email
The primary mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. The Secretary of Transportation has delegated to FMCSA its responsibility under 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31149 and 31502 to prescribe regulations that ensure that CMVs are operated safely. As part of this mission, the Agency's Medical Programs Division works to ensure that CMV drivers engaged in interstate commerce are physically qualified and able to safely perform their work.
Information used to determine and certify driver medical fitness must be collected for our highways to be safe. FMCSA is the Federal government agency authorized to require the collection of this information and the authorizing regulations are located at 49 CFR 390-399. FMCSA is required by statute to establish standards for the physical qualifications of drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce for non-excepted industries (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3), 31149(c)(1)(A)(i), and 31502(b)). The regulations relevant to this collection are outlined in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) at 49 CFR 390-399. The FMCSRs at 49 CFR 391.41 set forth the physical qualification standards that interstate CMV drivers who are subject to part 391 must meet, with the exception of drivers operating vehicles transporting migrant workers (who must meet the physical qualification standards set forth in 49 CFR 398.3). The FMCSRs covering driver physical qualification records are found at 49 CFR 391.43, which specify that a medical examination be performed on CMV drivers subject to part 391 who operate in interstate commerce. The results of the examination must be recorded in accordance with the requirements set forth in that section.
Section 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. As such, drivers with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) are currently prohibited from driving CMVs in interstate commerce unless they obtain an exemption from FMCSA.
On May 4, 2015 (80 FR 25260), FMCSA published a NPRM proposing to revise § 391.41(b)(3) to permit drivers with stable, well controlled ITDM to be
To assist in the development of the final rule, FMCSA requested that the MRB, under MRB Task 15-1, review and analyze all comments from medical professionals, labor and industry, and trade associations, and identify factors the Agency should consider when making decisions about the next steps in the diabetes rulemaking. In July 2015, the MRB deliberated on these public comments for purposes of offering recommendations to the Agency on this topic.
In September of 2015, the MRB provided several detailed recommendations in a final report of Task 15-1 to the Agency. In the report, the MRB recommended that FMCSA develop a questionnaire for the TC to send to the certified ME. See Recommendation II E, “FMCSA Drivers With Insulin Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form.” In September 2016, the Agency published a
The Agency evaluated the MRB's recommendations, as well as public comments, and is considering the use of an assessment form titled
The public interest in, and the right to have, safe highways requires the assurance that drivers of CMVs can safely perform the increased physical and mental demands of their duties. FMCSA's medical standards provide this assurance by requiring drivers to be examined and medically certified as physically and mentally qualified to drive a CMV.
Therefore, the information collected on this assessment form could assist the certified ME in determining if the driver with ITDM that is being examined is medically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41 to operate a CMV, and to ensure that there are no medical conditions that could adversely affect his or her ability to drive safely or cause incapacitation constituting a risk to the public.
The use of this form could allow the certified ME to have communication with TCs so that the certified ME fully understands whether the driver with ITDM that is being examined has stable, well-controlled diabetes. This information will assist the ME in determining whether insulin treatment or any medical complications of diabetes will impact a driver's ability to safely operate a CMV. Therefore, FMCSA expects that 100 percent of drivers who are treated with insulin and intend to operate a CMV in interstate commerce will have the form completed by their TC.
TCs would be able to fax or scan and email the form to the certified ME. Consistent with OMB's commitment to minimizing respondents' recordkeeping and paperwork burdens, and the increased use of secure electronic modes of communication, the Agency anticipates that approximately 25 percent of the
The information collected from the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0019 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each two-year period.
The 12 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber.
In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by § 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR part
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Mr. Barber, 43, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Since Mr. Barber is well adapted to his condition and has been a commercial truck driver for many years, I feel he is safe to continue driving and has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Barber reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.87 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Bihun, 30, has optic nerve pallor in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “His visual deficiency is stable and in my medical opinion he does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Bihun reported that he has driven straight trucks for eight years, accumulating 360,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for five years, accumulating 25,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Conner, 45, has chorioretinal scarring in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, count fingers. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that Patrick Conner has vision that is safe to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Conner reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 165,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Diebel, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “This patient has no restrictions to operate a commercial vehicle based on his ocular testing.” Mr. Diebel reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 255,000 miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Goodman, 44, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “He appears to have sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Goodman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 60,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for seven years, accumulating 135,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Grandfield, 59, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “It is my opinion that Mr. Grandfield's vision should not prevent him from operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Grandfield reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 560,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Vermont. His driving record for the last three years shows one crash, to which he did contribute but was not cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ideler, 60, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye since 2014. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Does this person have sufficient vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely: Yes.” Mr. Ideler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 39 years, accumulating 780,000 miles, and
Mr. Jones, 55, has aphakia in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion Mr. Jones has sufficient vision to perform to perform [
Mr. Jones, 59, has a retinal scar in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Jones reported that he has driven straight trucks for four years, accumulating 144,000 miles, and buses for seven years, accumulating 700,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last three years shows one crash and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Savko, 35, has optic nerve atrophy in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “It is my opinion that he has sufficient vision in the right eye to perform his driving tasks as required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Savko reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 162,500 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Montana. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Tilton, 47, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic incident in 1986. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, John's visual acuity, Visual Field [
Mr. VanScoy, 60, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Diagnosis congenital amblyopia. This patient meets the requirements to drive a commercial vehicle. He shows no deficit in his visual field.” Mr. VanScoy reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 42 years, accumulating 3.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice.
On July 12, 2016, FMCSA proposed a crash preventability demonstration program. Based on the feedback received in response to the
The crash preventability demonstration program will begin accepting RDRs on August 1, 2017, for crashes that occur on or after June 1, 2017.
Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone 202-366-6160 or by email:
Since its implementation in 2010, the Safety Measurement System (SMS) has used safety performance information in the Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) plus recordable crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), that are submitted by the States through the Agency's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), to prioritize carriers for safety interventions (75 FR 18256). The Agency uses the definition of “accident” in 49 CFR 390.5 to identify those crashes that must be maintained by the motor carrier in an accident register under 49 CFR 390.15. These include crashes resulting in fatalities, bodily injuries requiring immediate medical treatment away from the scene of the crash, or a vehicle being towed from the scene because of disabling damage. These same crashes must be reported by the States to FMCSA, through MCMIS, if the CMV has an actual weight (
The Crash Indicator BASIC uses crashes from the previous 24 months to calculate a percentile for a motor carrier. SMS weights crashes based on crash severity, with more weight given to fatality and injury crashes than those that resulted in a vehicle being towed from the scene with no injuries or fatalities. In addition, the crashes are time weighted, with more recent crashes having more weight. All reportable crashes are included in the Crash Indicator BASIC regardless of preventability.
While the public SMS Web site provides a list of the recordable crashes for the motor carrier, the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles have never been publicly available. The Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles are, however, available to motor carriers who log in to view their own data, as well as to FMCSA and law enforcement users.
Stakeholders have expressed concern that the Crash Indicator BASIC may not identify the highest-risk motor carriers for interventions and that the listing of crashes on the public Web site, without an indication of preventability, can give an inaccurate impression about the risk posed by the company.
On January 23, 2015, FMCSA announced the results of the Agency's study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes in the assessment of the company's safety (80 FR 3719). This study analyzed whether police accident reports provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash-weighting determinations; whether a crash weighting determination process would offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement and how crash weighting would be implemented in the Agency's SMS; and how FMCSA might manage a process for making crash-weighting determinations, including the acceptance of public input.
Among the public comments to FMCSA's January 23, 2015,
Based on ATA's recommendations and other feedback received in response to the January 2015
The Agency's July 2016
1. Driving under the influence;
2. Driving the wrong direction;
3. Striking the CMV in the rear; or
4. Striking the CMV while it was legally stopped.
While there were comments opposing the demonstration program, there were no comments opposing the categorization of the four proposed crash scenarios as not preventable; so these categories will be retained in the demonstration program as crashes that may be challenged by the motor carrier through an RDR.
Additionally, FMCSA advised in the July 2016
1. When an individual committed suicide by stepping or driving in front of the CMV;
2. When the CMV was incapacitated by an animal in the roadway; or
3. When the crash was the result of an infrastructure failure.
Comments to the
The Institute of Makers of Explosives recommended including crashes where vehicles are struck by debris, including trees and falling rocks. The American Bus Association recommended including crashes where vehicles are struck by cargo from another vehicle.
After consideration of these comments, FMCSA modifies the original list of not preventable crash scenarios to include crashes involving an unattended CMV that is legally stopped or parked, and crashes involving road debris or cargo from another vehicle. FMCSA believes that these crash scenarios are similar to the scenarios originally proposed because they generally are not complex. However, other crash scenarios proposed by commenters are more complex and would require more analysis and probably generate less consistent findings.
Therefore, the Agency has decided that the crashes that may be reviewed using the RDR process during the demonstration program include:
1. When the CMV was struck by a motorist driving under the influence (or related offense);
2. When the CMV was struck by a motorist driving the wrong direction;
3. When the CMV was struck in the rear;
4. When the CMV was struck while it was legally stopped or parked, including when the vehicle was unattended;
5. When the CMV struck an individual committing or attempting to commit suicide by stepping or driving in front of the CMV;
6. When the CMV sustained disabling damage after striking an animal in the roadway;
7. When the crash was the result of an infrastructure failure, falling trees, rocks, or other debris; or
8. When the CMV was struck by cargo or equipment from another vehicle.
As proposed in the July 2016 notice, FMCSA will use the preventability standard in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix B: “If a driver, who exercises normal judgment and foresight could have foreseen the possibility of the accident that in fact occurred, and avoided it by taking steps within his/her control which would not have risked causing another kind of mishap, the accident was preventable.”
FMCSA proposed that evidence of a conviction, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5 and 390.5, be required to document that the crash was not preventable by the motor carrier or driver. However, the vast majority of commenters opposed this requirement, including Richard Metz, Douglas B. Marcello, Vigillo, Knight Transportation, Greyhound, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) and the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Reasons cited included the amount of time that courts take to adjudicate cases, and the fact that, when the other driver dies in the crash, there is no prosecution. In addition, some commenters pointed out that the courts make a determination of “at fault” which has a definition different from “preventable.”
After consideration of this feedback, FMCSA will not require evidence of a conviction before processing crash preventability requests in the demonstration program. The Agency will, however, review conviction information, if provided.
In the July 2016 notice, FMCSA proposed that the RDRs should include all available law enforcement reports, insurance reports from all parties involved in the crash, and any other relevant information. Douglas B. Marcello, Vigillo, and the Owner Operators Independent Driver Association (OOIDA) noted that receiving insurance reports from other parties is unlikely and should not be required. In addition, Robert Spikes cited a crash where the insurance company paid because it was more cost effective than going to court. Comments also indicated that the Agency should accept other evidence, including videos.
Therefore, FMCSA will not require someone submitting a crash preventability RDR to include any specific documentation from third parties, such as insurance companies, but it will be incumbent on the submitter to provide sufficient documentation that a crash was not preventable. The Agency will consider all relevant evidence submitted.
The burden is on the submitter to show by compelling evidence that the crash was not preventable. However, in these and all crashes, FMCSA reserves the right to request additional information on the crash, which may include any documentation the carrier is required to maintain under the Agency's regulations. Failure to submit documents requested by the Agency may cause the RDR to be closed without a preventability determination.
On August 1, the Agency's DataQs system will accept videos 5 MB or smaller in specific video container formats, including MP4, MPG, MKV, AVI, MPEG, and WMV file types. These file types will be accepted in this demonstration program.
If, during the demonstration program, a submitter receives a determination that the crash was preventable or undecided, or the RDR is closed for failure to submit additional requested documents, the RDR may be re-opened once and the request reconsidered by FMCSA if additional documentation is submitted.
The Agency proposed that a crash would be found preventable if documentation showed that the CMV driver was in violation of an out of service (OOS) regulation at the time of the crash,
United Vision Logistics asserted that an OOS violation should not be determinative unless it was a contributing factor to the crash. Transportation Safety Services also indicated that crashes should not be considered preventable due to OOS violations.
While some commenters did not want other violations to impact the crash preventability decision, the Agency is retaining this requirement in the demonstration program consistent with the Agency's current preventability review procedures. Operations in violation of an OOS regulation demonstrate a disregard for safety and compliance. These crashes were preventable because the vehicle and/or driver should not have been operating. Therefore, if a vehicle and/or driver was operating with any OOS condition under the North American Standard OOS Criteria at the time of the crash, the RDR will result in a preventable determination, because the vehicle and/or driver should not have been on the roadway because of an OOS condition. Additionally, if the motor carrier was in violation of an operations OOS order, the crash will be determined to have been preventable.
In the July 2016
In response to the Agency's proposal to remove not preventable crashes from the public SMS display, commenters correctly stated that the Agency was
Fault is generally determined in the course of civil or criminal proceedings and results in the assignment of legal liability for the consequences of a crash. By contrast, a preventability determination seeks to identify the root causes for a crash and is used to prevent the same type of crash from re-occurring. A preventability determination is not a proceeding to assign legal liability for a crash. Because preventability determinations are distinct from findings of fault, Section 5223 does not prohibit the public display of not preventable crashes.
The demonstration program is intended to analyze preventability. The Agency believes that the public display of all crashes, regardless of the preventability determination, provides the most complete information regarding a motor carrier's safety performance record. The Agency is committed to the open and transparent reporting of safety performance data. Therefore, during the demonstration program, not preventable crashes will continue to be listed on the public SMS site. However, the review of the crash, and the subsequent determination, will be clearly noted as described below. In addition, during the demonstration program, the motor carrier's Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles for motor carriers logged into the SMS, FMCSA, and law enforcement users will show percentiles with and without the crashes determined to be not preventable.
During the demonstration program, changes in SMS will not be reflected in the Agency's mobile applications such as the SaferBus and Query Central (QC Mobile) apps or the Pre-employment Screening Program.
FMCSA considered weighting crashes determined to be preventable with a higher weight in the SMS to see the impacts to the Agency's crash correlation models. YRC Worldwide, Inc. and OOIDA expressed concerns about weighting crashes determined to be preventable. It was noted that this might discourage participation in the demonstration program. As a result, FMCSA will not use a higher severity weighting for any crashes determined to be preventable for any SMS calculations during the demonstration program. However, the Agency's analysis of the demonstration program will review these crashes and include severity weight options to determine impacts on crash correlation.
The Agency did not receive comments requesting changes to the three proposed preventability decisions. The three preventability decisions will remain “Not Preventable,” “Preventable,” and “Undecided.” FMCSA clarifies below how these decisions will be displayed:
1.
2.
3.
In addition, if a submitter fails to provide documents requested by FMCSA, the RDR will be designated in DataQs as “Closed Due to Non-Response” without any notation in the public display of SMS.
The July 2016
The opportunity to collect information from other parties is critical to determining the impacts and costs of this program. Therefore, during the demonstration program, if a crash is reviewed and results in a preliminary finding that it was not preventable, the crash report number, U.S. DOT number, motor carrier name, crash event date, crash event State and crash type will be listed on the Agency's DataQs Web site.
Any member of the public with documentation or data to refute the proposed finding will have 30 days to submit the documentation through the DataQs system at
Any new documents or data will be reviewed and considered before FMCSA makes a final determination. Final determinations will be reflected on SMS within 60 days of the final decision.
Motor carriers and drivers will submit crash preventability RDRs through the Agency's DataQs system. DataQs has been modified to provide this functionality. The DataQs system is available at:
Information on how to submit a crash preventability RDR is available on the Agency's Web site at
It should be noted that crash preventability RDRs for crashes that predate this program or that do not correspond to the crash scenarios listed above will not be processed. However, motor carriers and drivers should continue to submit RDRs through DataQs when crashes are assigned to the wrong carrier or the crash did not meet the definition of a recordable crash, using processes currently in place.
FMCSA will use contract resources to complete two stages of review within the DataQs system. In stage 1, the reviewer will collect all documents related to the crash from the submitter and FMCSA systems.
In stage 2, an experienced crash report reviewer will evaluate all of the documents from the submitter and FMCSA systems, including the MCMIS crash information. It should be noted that if an RDR is submitted before the MCMIS crash report is received, the
The stage 2 reviewer will confirm that the crash meets one of the crash types noted above. Based on the evidence reviewed, the stage 2 reviewer will make a recommendation to FMCSA as to whether compelling evidence demonstrates that the crash was not preventable. The FMCSA reviewer will review the evidence considered by the stage 1 reviewer and the stage 2 recommendation. If FMCSA agrees with the recommendation of not preventable, the crash will be posted for public input as noted above. If the recommendation is for a determination that the crash was preventable or that the information submitted was insufficient to support a determination, and the FMCSA reviewer agrees, the determination of “Preventable” or “Undecided” would be noted in the public SMS display as described in the “Preventability Decisions” section above added to the corresponding crash in SMS. Changes would be reflected on SMS within 60 days.
At the onset of the program, all RDRs will be checked by a second reviewer during stage 2. If FMCSA's determination differs from the stage 2 recommendation, an additional final reviewer will be utilized and make a recommendation to FMCSA.
Throughout the program, FMCSA will evaluate the quality control process. For continued consistency of crash preventability determinations, a percentage of RDRs will be reviewed before a recommendation is made to FMCSA.
In accordance with the Agency's existing DataQs program, any intentionally false or misleading statement, representation, or document that is provided in support of an RDR may result in prosecution for a violation of Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1001).
Under 49 U.S.C. 504(f), “No part of a report of an accident occurring in operations of a motor carrier, motor carrier of migrant workers, or motor private carrier and required by the Secretary, and no part of a report of an investigation of the accident made by the Secretary, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages related to a matter mentioned in the report or investigation.” The crash preventability determinations made under this program are intended only for FMCSA's use in determining whether the program may improve the Agency's prioritization tools. These determinations are made on the basis of information available to FMCSA at the time of the determination and are not appropriate for use by private parties in civil litigation. These determinations do not establish fault or negligence by any party and are made by persons with no personal knowledge of the crash.
In addition, the crash preventability determinations made under this program will not affect any carrier's safety rating or ability to operate. FMCSA will not issue penalties or sanctions on the basis of these determinations, nor do they establish any obligations or impose legal requirements on any motor carrier. These determinations also will not change how the Agency will make enforcement decisions.
Information submitted about a crash as part of this demonstration program may be shared with the appropriate FMCSA Division Office for further investigation. Likewise, if an investigation reveals additional information about a crash for which the demonstration program made a preventability determination, this information may be shared within the Agency and the crash subjected to further review.
Throughout this demonstration period, FMCSA will maintain data so that at the conclusion of the test, the Agency can conduct certain analyses. It is expected that the Agency's analyses would include, but not be limited to, the cost of operating the test and its extrapolation to a larger program; future crash rates of carriers that submitted RDRs, future crash rates of motor carriers with not preventable crashes, and impacts to SMS crash rates and improvements to prioritization. The analysis will be used to examine ATA's assertion that crashes of these types are not preventable and that removing these crashes from the motor carriers' records would result in a better correlation to future crash risk, and inform future policy decisions on this issue.
FMCSA will accept RDRs for crashes occurring on or after June 1, 2017. FMCSA will begin accepting RDRs through DataQs for this demonstration program on August 1, 2017. This will provide the Agency with time to conduct outreach to the industry and for motor carriers or drivers to collect needed documents for submission.
This demonstration program is expected to last a minimum of 24 months.
For the purpose of prioritizing motor carriers for safety interventions, FMCSA will continue to use all crashes during the demonstration program.
A few commenters asked how this program would impact the Agency's Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 21, 2016. Preventability determinations made as part of this demonstration program will not be used for the purpose of safety ratings under the Agency's existing safety fitness determination process. The Agency will continue to make preventability determinations under its current procedures in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix B, when a crash adversely affects a carrier's safety rating. If a carrier disagrees with the calculation of the crash factor during a compliance review the carrier must request removal under the procedures identified in the compliance review report it receives or under the procedures identified in 49 CFR 385.15. The determinations made through this demonstration program will only be used to determine the impacts of preventability determinations on the effectiveness of the SMS in identifying the highest-risk carriers for interventions. Crash determinations made in this demonstration program will not be considered as part of any Agency action or proceeding that may impact a carrier's safety rating, including safety rating upgrade requests.
In addition, FMCSA published a notice withdrawing the SFD NPRM on March 23, 2017.
While most comments to the July 2016
The purpose of this demonstration program, however, is to gather data that
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt ten individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted June 27, 2017. The exemptions expire on June 27, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On May 26, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (82 FR 24430). That notice listed ten applicants' case histories. The ten individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a two year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the ten applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The ten exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, complete loss of vision, congenital cataract, corneal transplant, macular scar, optic neuropathy, and prosthetic eye. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Five of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The five individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of 10 to 47 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these ten drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 5 to 35 years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the May 26, 2017, notice (82 FR 24430).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past three year record of the ten applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least three years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the two year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the ten applicants listed in the notice of May 26, 2017 (82 FR 24430).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the ten individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time oaf the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Simon Batter stated the he has worked with Blaine Dickman for 19 years and has never seen or heard of any issues related to his monocular vision.
Based upon its evaluation of the ten exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the two year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on June 30, 2017, Watco Companies LLC (Watco) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking reconsideration of a decision regarding the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0058.
Watco is the owner-operator of the Grand Elk Railroad LLC (GDLK), which operates on track that is currently leased from Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS). Watco requests reconsideration under 49 CFR 235.13(a) of FRA's denial of its application to discontinue and remove the traffic control system (TCS) from mile post (MP) 33.00 at Park, in Grand Rapids, MI to MP 1.4 at the end of GDLK, in Elkhart, IN. FRA issued its decision letter denying the application on November 29, 2016, and issued a second letter to clarify the basis of its decision on January 10, 2017.
Based on new facts and new evidence, Watco is seeking reconsideration of its application on behalf of GDLK. Watco asserts that FRA's Railroad Safety Board (Board) based its denial on erroneous information. Watco believes the hazardous materials (hazmat) information provided in the field report considered by the Board was out of date or incorrect.
Watco owns and operates 20 railroads on 3570 miles of main line that is track warrant controlled (TWC) and Watco states that of those railroads, 5 safely transport more hazmat than GDLK. GDLK conducts ultrasonic rail and geometry testing twice per year over the entire railroad. GDLK operates to the north of subject trackage from milepost 33 to milepost 102.3 a mix of TWC and yard limits (YL). There are two manual interlockings on the north section of track using TWC as an acceptable method of operation. TWC is the method of operation used by all dispatched Watco railroads, including parts of the GDLK. Watco states that the discontinuance of the TCS section and converting it to TWC maintains the consistency of dispatching and standardization of training for the GDLK, and will provide a higher level of safety through simplified operations by having one method of controlled operation rather than the two it has now. Watco further states that this consistency and standardization of dispatching and training will enhance the safety of GDLK operations.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by September 11, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on June 27, 2017 the San Bernardino Railroad Historical Society Inc. (SBRHS) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 230,
SBRHS maintains and operates No. 3751, a 4-8-4 “Northern” type steam locomotive built by the Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1927 for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad. SBRHS requests relief from performing the 1472 service day inspection (SDI), for No. 3751, as it pertains to the inspection of the boiler every 15 calendar years or 1472 service days under 49 CFR 230.17—
SBRHS sporadically operates No. 3751 for display in the Los Angeles area as well as excursions to San Diego and San Bernardino, CA and Williams, AZ. SBRHS's justification for requesting relief is that No. 3751 has only operated for a total of 141 service days within the 15-calendar year period. SBRHS anticipates approximately 10 additional service days for the locomotive during the requested time extension.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by September 11, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under Part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on June 28, 2017 the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations in 49 CFR part 214. FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2017-0061.
Amtrak is requesting relief from the definition of “fouling a track” found at 49 CFR 214.7 at certain locations within Amtrak's New York Penn Station. The waiver is sought for the express purpose of increasing the number of areas considered a “place of safety” under 214.329 to improve the safety and efficiency of roadway maintenance procedures at that location. Safety will be improved by reducing the distance roadway workers must move and lessening the number of live tracks they may have to cross to reach a place of safety upon receiving warning of an approaching train. Efficiency of roadway maintenance procedures will be improved by increasing the number of clearing locations, thereby reducing time spent moving to and from places of safety.
The area under consideration in New York Penn Station lies between the Hudson River and Empire Connection tunnels to the west and the East River tunnels to the east when certain conditions, identified below, are met. If approved, when train approach warning is used as the method of protection, roadway workers may move to a previously arranged place of safety designated as a “clearance area” that may be slightly less than four feet from the near running rail but, due to track and station structure configurations, provide a safe haven from the risk of being struck by moving trains or on-track equipment.
Amtrak's waiver request states that it faces operational problems complying with new provisions in 49 CFR 214.329(a), effective April 1, 2017, while operating an average of approximately 1,100 weekday, and 700 weekend departures and arrivals. Penn Station has 21 tracks fed by seven tunnels (the two Hudson River Tunnels, the four East River Tunnels, and the single Empire Connection tunnel). It is at the center of the Northeast Corridor as well as the main intercity railroad station in New York City. Intercity trains are operated by Amtrak, which owns the station, while commuter rail services are operated by the Long Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit. In its waiver request, Amtrak also states that, prior to the new rule, Amtrak roadway workers using train approach warning as a method of protection in Penn Station would clear to another track as their place of safety when the Watchman/Lookout provided a warning of an impending movement on the track which they occupied or fouled. In addition, Amtrak's waiver request states that the revised rule now prohibits making the place of safety another track unless working limits are established on that track and movement authority is withheld or not authorized by the roadway worker-in-charge. Finally, the waiver request states that the additional constraints and disruption of movement, and subsequent delays to trains and passengers required to establish working limits, could be significantly offset if Amtrak could utilize existing places of refuge that do not meet the requirements of the regulation.
Amtrak explains in its request that New York Penn Station was built between 1901 and 1910, and is entirely underground. As such, Amtrak asserts the architecture and track configurations within the station area provide several locations where it is physically impossible to be struck by moving equipment despite being within four feet of the near rail. Amtrak believes these areas provide the same level of safety as a tunnel niche without the restrictions of a confined space. Amtrak explains that except for the use of tunnel niches and clearing bays provided for in 49 CFR 214.317(d), the 214.7 definition of “fouling a track” prevents the use of other infrastructure
Should FRA grant the waiver request, Amtrak will designate specific areas that are slightly less than four feet from the near running rail but nonetheless provide a place of safety as a “clearance area” and Amtrak will comply with the following conditions prior to designating any space as a clearance area:
1. Ensure there is adequate sight distance at that location to permit a roadway worker or lone worker to occupy that place of safety at least 15 seconds prior to the arrival of a train or other on-track equipment;
2. Identify clearance areas with clearly visible signage;
3. Direct a roadway-worker-in-charge to visually inspect each applicable clearance area to ensure it is suitable for use as a place of safety;
4. Ensure the use of such clearance areas is discussed in the job briefing prior to any roadway worker fouling the track;
5. Ensure it has and procedures that state the roadway-worker-in-charge or lone worker has the absolute right to designate an alternate place of safety as a location other than, or to establish working limits.
6. Ensure it has and procedures that state any roadway worker has the right to a good faith challenge of the use of a clearance area if there is a reasonable belief the area does not provide an adequate level of protection;
7. Ensure it has and procedures that state all affected roadway workers will receive instruction prior to the use of clearance areas.
8. Amtrak will publish and distribute the above procedures in Amtrak's Roadway Worker Bulletins, and address them in a training blitz or job safety briefing, and document them in Amtrak's Total Efficiency and Safety Tests System (T.E.S.T.S) using Test 198. In addition, Amtrak will immediately add the procedures to the annual training curriculum at the affected locations.
Amtrak believes the requested relief is completely safe and will greatly improve the efficiency of roadway maintenance in one of the busiest stations in North America.
A copy of the petition, as well as any other written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by August 28, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On June 29, 2017, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked pursuant to the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(vii) and section 2(a)(viii) of Executive Order 13722, “Blocking Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers' Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea,” for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, RI SONG HYOK, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked, pursuant to E.O. 13722; and for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, RI SONG HYOK, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked, pursuant to E.O. 13722.
2. SUN, Wei, 224-4 Shifu Da Lu, RM 1305, Heping District, Sheyang City, Liaoning Province, China; 200-69 Yinhe East Road, 115 Tianshifu County, Benxi Manchurian Autonomous Region, Liaoning Province, China; DOB 01 Jul 1982; Gender Male; National ID No. 210521198207010412 (China) expires 13 Aug 2029 (individual) [NPWMD] (Linked To: FOREIGN TRADE BANK OF THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iv) of Executive Order 13382, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters” (“E.O. 13382”), for acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, FOREIGN TRADE BANK, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
Designated pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 13722, for operating in the transportation industry in the North Korean economy, an industry in the North Korea economy determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be subject to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 13722.
Category | Regulatory Information | |
Collection | Federal Register | |
sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |