| Page Range | 39491-39653 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 39581 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39644 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 39571 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NCCC Team Leader Application; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 39535 - Safety Zone: PG&E Evolution, King Salmon, CA | |
| 82 FR 39609 - Imposition of Conditions of Entry for Certain Vessels Arriving to the United States From the Federated States of Micronesia | |
| 82 FR 39645 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National Flight Data Center Web Portal | |
| 82 FR 39614 - Arnold E. Feldman, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 82 FR 39614 - Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Order | |
| 82 FR 39569 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Meeting of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel | |
| 82 FR 39618 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree | |
| 82 FR 39553 - 340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation | |
| 82 FR 39580 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 82 FR 39541 - Potassium Salts of Naphthalenesulfonic Acids Formaldehyde Condensates; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 82 FR 39565 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results | |
| 82 FR 39563 - Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Postponements of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 82 FR 39568 - Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council: Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39612 - Amenity Fees at Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge, KY | |
| 82 FR 39579 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 2260.05, OMB Control No. 2090-0029 | |
| 82 FR 39564 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Italy, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Spain, the Republic of Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 82 FR 39569 - National Estuarine Research Reserve System | |
| 82 FR 39643 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Maori Portraits: Gottfried Lindauer's New Zealand” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 39643 - Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Beyond Impressionism-Paris, Fin-de-Siècle: The Art of Signac, Redon, Toulouse-Lautrec and Their Contemporaries” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 39556 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 39620 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 39568 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Waterfront Construction | |
| 82 FR 39591 - Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997: Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 047 | |
| 82 FR 39573 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth | |
| 82 FR 39571 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico | |
| 82 FR 39572 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford | |
| 82 FR 39600 - Division of Behavioral Health; Office of Clinical and Preventive Services; Zero Suicide Initiative-Support | |
| 82 FR 39644 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Hartford City, Ind.; Central Railroad Company of Indianapolis-Discontinuance of Lease and Operation Authority-in Hartford City, Ind. | |
| 82 FR 39611 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement | |
| 82 FR 39610 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Passenger List/Crew List | |
| 82 FR 39619 - OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 39572 - DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39584 - Submission for OMB Review; Service Contracts Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 39646 - Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a Railroad Signal System | |
| 82 FR 39645 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 39619 - Meetings of Humanities Panel | |
| 82 FR 39556 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Certification of Identity Form for the Freedom of Information Privacy Act Requests | |
| 82 FR 39586 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 39585 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 39650 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SAGAMORE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39647 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel REFLECTION; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39648 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MONI; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39649 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LELANTA; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39653 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LADY KATH; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39650 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SUMMER WIND; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39649 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SIRIUS; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39651 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel E JEAN; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39652 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel DESTINY; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39652 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel REEL VIKING; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 39589 - Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 39611 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. Bayamón, PR, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 39589 - Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Support for Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data Implementation Guide Version 3.1 | |
| 82 FR 39587 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; RECUVYRA | |
| 82 FR 39559 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Direct Investment Surveys: BE-605, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States-Transactions of U.S. Affiliate With Foreign Parent | |
| 82 FR 39534 - Medical Device Classification Procedures; Change of Address; Technical Amendment | |
| 82 FR 39598 - Content of Risk Information in the Major Statement in Prescription Drug Direct-to-Consumer Broadcast Advertisements; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Information and Comments | |
| 82 FR 39557 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 39613 - Federal Advisory Committee: National Geospatial Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 39573 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725E); Comment Request; Revision | |
| 82 FR 39573 - Eric and Debbie Wattenburg, William Shelton; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 82 FR 39577 - Notice of Transfer of Exemptions: Lower Valley, LLC; West Hopkinton Hydro, LLC; Sweetwater Hydroelectric, LLC; Green Mountain Power Corporation | |
| 82 FR 39578 - Bidden Creek Bores Properties, LLC; JBS Rentals, LLC; Notice of Transfer of Exemption | |
| 82 FR 39578 - Notice of Application: DCP Operating Company, LP | |
| 82 FR 39563 - Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board | |
| 82 FR 39561 - Request for Comment on the Costs and Benefits to U.S. Industry of U.S. International Government Procurement Obligations for Report to the President on “Buy American and Hire American” | |
| 82 FR 39561 - Approval of Expansion of Subzone 87F; Westlake Chemical Corporation; Sulphur, Louisiana | |
| 82 FR 39641 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 21.2, Days and Hours of Business | |
| 82 FR 39636 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material .14 of Rule 504, Entitled “Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading” | |
| 82 FR 39621 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Recordkeeping Requirements | |
| 82 FR 39639 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 925 To Create a Limited Exception to the Exchange's Procedures To Designate an Inactive Nominee as an Effective Permit Holder Intra-Day and Make a Non-Substantive Change to the Pricing Schedule | |
| 82 FR 39643 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Facilitate the Listing and Trading of Certain Series of Investment Company Units Listed Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) | |
| 82 FR 39622 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Margin Framework and Default Fund Methodology for Options on Index Credit Default Swaps | |
| 82 FR 39630 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 2120 (Trading Conduct and Order & Decorum on the Trading Floor) and Amend Rule 12140 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations) To Adopt Rule Violations and Sanctions Applicable to the Trading Floor | |
| 82 FR 39560 - Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 12 Under Alternative Site Framework; McAllen, Texas | |
| 82 FR 39609 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 39570 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39635 - TIAA-CREF Funds, et al. | |
| 82 FR 39647 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects | |
| 82 FR 39581 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10160-SolutionsBank, Overland Park, Kansas | |
| 82 FR 39567 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 39560 - Designation of New Grantee; Foreign-Trade Zone 103, Grand Forks, North Dakota | |
| 82 FR 39560 - Approval of Subzone Status; Glovis America, Inc.; Shreveport, Louisiana | |
| 82 FR 39600 - Charter Renewal of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 39582 - Uber Technologies, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 39549 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rosebud, SD | |
| 82 FR 39532 - Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-7 and V-67; TN | |
| 82 FR 39491 - Miscellaneous Amendments to Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee Program | |
| 82 FR 39533 - Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees | |
| 82 FR 39551 - Request for Comment on Reconsideration of the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles; Request for Comment on Model Year 2021 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards | |
| 82 FR 39537 - Air Plan Approval; SC: Miscellaneous Revisions to Multiple Rules | |
| 82 FR 39551 - Air Plan Approval; SC: Miscellaneous Revisions to Multiple Rules | |
| 82 FR 39509 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 39520 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 39511 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 39529 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 39518 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 39523 - Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc., Helicopters | |
| 82 FR 39506 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters | |
| 82 FR 39513 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 39525 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 39545 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Economic Analysis Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Drug Enforcement Administration
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
This final rule amends SBA regulations to update, streamline and clarify rules for the Business Loan Programs (as defined below) and the Surety Bond Guarantee Program (“SBG”). For purposes of this rule, the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, the Intermediary Lending Pilot (ILP) Program, and the Development Company Loan Program (“504 Loan Program”) are collectively referred to as the “Business Loan Programs.”
This rule is effective September 20, 2017, except for the amendment to § 120.1400(a), which is effective October 20, 2017.
Robert Carpenter, Acting Chief, 7(a) Program and Policy Branch, Office of Financial Assistance, Office of Capital Access, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; telephone: (202) 205-7654;
The SBA programs that are affected by this final rule are: (1) The 7(a) Loan Program; (2) the Microloan Program; (3) the Intermediary Lending Pilot (ILP) Program; (4) the 504 Loan Program, and (5) the Surety Bond Guarantee (“SBG”) Program.
SBA published in the
The Agency reviewed the public comments it received concerning its proposed rule changes for 13 CFR parts 115 and 120. The comment review of specific final rule changes for the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, the 504 Loan Program, and the SBG Program is summarized as follows:
SBA received 57 comment submissions, of which two were duplicates from the same commenter. The 55 net comments were reviewed by the Agency.
The comments submitted consisted of 20 from Certified Development Companies (CDCs), 15 from banks and non-bank lenders, 12 from trade associations, three from lender service providers, two from law firms, and three from private citizens. SBA received comments from 51 commenters pertaining only to changes to the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, and the 504 Loan Program (13 CFR part 120), and comments from three commenters pertaining only to changes in the SBG Program (13 CFR part 115).
The majority of the commenters supported the proposed changes, with some commenters recommending minor modifications. SBA addresses the comments in detail within the appropriate Section-by-Section analysis below.
In addition, for the reasons discussed in section 115.32 below, SBA is revising the rule to retain a dollar threshold, but to increase it from $100,000 to $500,000.
SBA considered these comments, but has decided not to accept the recommendation. As SBA stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 52597), SBA currently does not receive a final accounting of fees due and paid by the Surety and Principal on contracts that are successfully completed and, consequently, SBA is unable to ensure that fees due the Government as a result of an increase in the contract amount are paid in a timely manner on contracts that do not default. This report will assist SBA in ensuring that fees due for increases on successfully completed contracts are accurately calculated and paid timely. SBA is amending this section as proposed.
Three commenters generally expressed support for this provision and indicated that, with the increase in the maximum contract amount from $2 million to $6.5 million (and to $10 million for certain Federal contracts), the $100,000 threshold was too low and unduly burdensome. However, two of the commenters also expressed concern that smaller contracts would be negatively impacted by a threshold based only on percentage. These comments have caused SBA to reconsider the effects of totally removing the dollar threshold. For example, with no dollar threshold, a $5 million contract could be increased by $1 million without the Prior Approval Surety notifying SBA or requesting, when required, SBA's prior approval. To minimize the risks to the Agency that would be posed by such a large increase, the Surety should be required to notify SBA or, when required, seek SBA's prior approval. Thus, upon reconsidering this issue, SBA has decided to retain a dollar threshold, but in the interests of striking a balance between the risks to the Agency and minimizing any burden on Sureties, the rule is being revised to increase the dollar threshold from $100,000 to $500,000.
In addition, as discussed above for § 115.19, SBA is accepting and incorporating the recommendation to add clarifying language in the final rule to read “25% of the original contract amount”.
Another commenter suggested that this requirement may discourage applications from Sureties for acceptance into the PSB Program. With PSB Sureties executing SBA-guaranteed bonds without SBA's prior approval, SBA believes that it is in the taxpayers' and the Agency's best interests to require newer Sureties to demonstrate an understanding of the program before being allowed to issue bonds larger than $2 million without SBA's oversight. SBA is amending this section as proposed.
As proposed, SBA is removing consumer and marketing cooperatives from the ineligible types of businesses identified in this section and is reserving paragraph (l). SBA received support for the proposed change from 22 commenters. With respect to the comments received, 18 commenters requested the removal of the requirement that at least one individual or entity provide an unlimited guaranty for a loan made to a consumer or marketing cooperative, and instead permit the use of a loan guarantee pool funded by cooperative enterprises. Commenters suggested that the ownership for many cooperatives consists of multiple members, and that obtaining personal guaranties from multiple members can be overly burdensome and should not apply to cooperatives. Currently, SBA allows for an entity to provide the required loan guaranty in lieu of a personal guaranty from an individual. SBA is not removing the guaranty requirements for cooperatives at this time due to the inequity it would create for all other classes of loan applicants where the unlimited guaranty of an individual or entity is required. The rules governing guaranties will continue to apply to cooperatives. SBA is amending this section as proposed.
SBA is amending this regulation as proposed with some modifications as discussed below. The amended regulation will permit SBA loan
In the 504 Loan Program, the amended regulation will permit loan proceeds to be used to finance a change of ownership in the EPC when the asset(s) of the EPC are limited to real estate and/or other eligible long-term fixed assets that the EPC leases to one or more Operating Companies (“OC”) for conducting the OC's business. SBA recognizes that an EPC's balance sheet may include limited assets in addition to the real estate or other eligible long-term fixed assets, such as capital replacement reserves or escrow accounts for taxes and/or insurance (such assets are referred to in this discussion as “ineligible assets”). In such case, 504 loan proceeds may be used to finance a change of ownership between existing owners of the EPC as long as (1) the ineligible assets are directly related to the real estate or other eligible long-term fixed assets, (2) the amount attributable to such ineligible assets is de minimis, and (3) the ineligible assets are excluded from the Project financing. Further guidance for the 504 Loan Program will be incorporated into SOP 50 10.
SBA received 15 comments in support of this change with no objection. Nine additional commenters supported this change with minor modification and suggested language revisions to the introductory paragraph to clarify what purpose loan proceeds may be used for when an OC is a co-borrower with the EPC. One commenter suggested changing the term “Lender” to “SBA Lender” as it is a defined term that includes both a 7(a) Lender and CDC in this section. The term “lender” as used in paragraph (a)(3) of this section includes Third Party Lenders in 504 Loan projects, so it is not appropriate to use “SBA Lender.” However, the term “lender” as used in paragraph (a)(6) is directed to both a 7(a) Lender and a CDC; therefore, SBA is accepting this recommendation for paragraph (a)(6) of this section, changing the term “lender” to read “SBA Lender.”
Eight commenters also suggested revised language that they believe would clarify the Direct Final Rule that took effect on May 17, 2012 (77 FR 19531, April 2, 2012). That revision provided that in an EPC/OC structure, when the OC is a co‐borrower the Agency would allow loan proceeds to be used for working capital (as was already allowed) as well as for “the purchase of other assets for use by the OC, including the purchase of stock or intangible assets (such as trademarks, copyrights, intellectual property or goodwill).” An industry trade association, suggested in its comments that when the Direct Final Rule was published in 2012, SBA inadvertently omitted language from the introductory paragraph of § 120.111, and the omission of the language led to incorrect interpretations of the revised regulation. SBA considers this particular comment to be a logical outgrowth of reviewing § 120.111 and within the context of the proposed rule to clarify and correct areas of the regulations that are out of date or inconsistent with the current procedures. While not included in the proposed rule, based on the comments received, SBA is adding language to the introductory paragraph to clarify the eligible uses of loan proceeds when the OC is a co-borrower on the loan to the EPC.
SBA is amending § 120.111(a)(3) to clarify that rent or lease payments made by the OC to the EPC cannot exceed the amount necessary to make the loan payment to the lender, and additional amounts to cover the EPC's direct expenses of holding the property, such as maintenance, insurance and property taxes. SBA received 32 comments concerning this proposed change, 12 in support of and 20 objecting to the proposed change to this paragraph. Commenters recommended the proposed language be amended to specify that the rents charged by the EPC to the OC could include a reserve to cover capital asset replacement such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). One commenter stated that the proposed regulation refers only to the “the loan payment to the lender” and does not take into consideration that in a 504 Loan, the EPC/OC rent includes payments to the CDC, the Third Party Lender and any junior financing such as a borrowed equity loan or other financing outside of the 504 Project. Payments to the Third Party Lender participating in a 504 project are included in the “loan payment to the lender” and SBA determined that no additional clarification for this issue is necessary.
Several commenters who objected to the proposed change recommended that SBA adopt Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards for holding companies and not require additional regulatory requirements. IRS rules generally do not consider or address SBA Loan Program Requirements such as the prohibition of financing for investors or landlords. While SBA permits eligible EPCs to hold certain assets financed for the benefit of the OC, it is not the intent of SBA to permit the EPC to profit from its relationship with the OC.
It is SBA's positon that routine maintenance costs, Project debt payments, and repairs are already included in the permissible direct expenses of holding the property and as such would be permissible under the regulation. Additional guidance on this issue will be placed in SOP 50 10.
SBA also proposed to add language to § 120.111(a)(6) to provide the Agency may, in its discretion and in consultation with the SBA Lender, require the guaranty of individuals or entities with less than 20 percent ownership of the EPC or the OC when circumstances warrant. In 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 (September 27, 2010) (the “2010 Jobs Act”) increased the maximum loan size for 7(a) and 504 Loans. SBA now receives more loan requests from applicants with multiple owners who may hold less than 20 percent of the company regardless of managerial responsibilities, corporate titles or ownership interest, if any.
SBA received 24 comments on this proposed change: 18 in full support, five in support with modification, and one objecting to the proposed change. Recommended modifications to this paragraph included revising the language to provide greater detail as to when individuals could be required to guarantee the loan, and to provide authority to both SBA and delegated lenders to determine when there are sufficient reasons to do so. One commenter expressed concern that the proposed change would be “all encompassing” and may result in unintended consequences.
It is prudent for SBA to require a lender to obtain a guaranty when one or more individuals or entities have the authority and responsibility to manage operations regardless of their ownership interest in the applicant business. SBA will generally not require individuals or entities with less than 20 percent ownership of the applicant business to guarantee the loan when the lender
SBA deems it prudent to maintain discretion for SBA, in consultation with the Lender, to require guaranties from individuals or entities with less than 20% ownership of the applicant business when they are critical to the extension of credit. The removal of the reference to 5% as the strict measure for required guaranties will allow SBA to obtain full or limited guaranties from appropriate individuals or entities regardless of their ownership interest in the applicant business, if any, when deemed necessary. In addition, SBA considered and is accepting the recommendation to provide this discretion to delegated SBA Lenders as well and, therefore, is modifying the rule to state that SBA and, for loans processed under an SBA Lender's delegated authority, the SBA Lender, may determine when credit or other reasons make it necessary to obtain a full or limited guaranty from appropriate individuals or entities regardless of their ownership interest, if any, in the applicant business. SBA will provide additional guidance on the guaranty requirements in the appropriate SBA SOP.
Twenty commenters recommended the proposed changes to the personal guaranty rules be provided in SOPs, where exceptions can be made. While SBA provides additional detail on guaranty requirements in its SOPs, program-wide rules are appropriately included in this regulation. SBA is amending this section as proposed with the modifications discussed above.
In § 120.220(b), SBA is amending the regulation to advise Lenders to pay the guaranty fee electronically and revising the timeframe within which a Lender must pay the guaranty fee to SBA for loans with a maturity of 12 months or
In § 120.220(c), SBA also proposed and is adopting the rule change removing the first two sentences which state when SBA will refund the guaranty fee paid on a short-term loan. The additional 10 day time period post-loan approval for payment of the fee negates the need for refunds. SBA received eight comments supporting the proposed change in the timing of payment to SBA of guarantee fees on loans of 12 months or less, but the commenters asked that SBA provide a provision for refund of the guaranty fee of an approved loan if the Lender had not made any disbursements. The guaranty fee is limited to one quarter of one percent of the guaranteed portion of the short-term loan and is only refundable if a short-term loan application is withdrawn by the Lender prior to approval by SBA, if SBA declines to guarantee the loan, or if SBA approves the loan but substantially changes the terms and SBA's modified terms are unacceptable to the Lender. SBA deems the fee earned for short-term loans once the SBA loan number is issued. SBA is not adopting the suggestion regarding refunds on short-term loans.
SBA is adopting, as proposed, the addition of an introductory paragraph stating that, unless otherwise permitted by SBA Loan Program Requirements (
SBA is amending the specified sections to remove the terms “on-site” and “off-site” as proposed.
SBA proposed and is adopting replacement of the term “Good Standing” with “Satisfactory” as it relates to a Lender's status with its other Federal regulators in §§ 120.410(e), 120.630(a)(4), and 120.1703(a)(4). SBA will determine if a Lender is considered “Satisfactory” by its other regulators based on, for example, information in published orders/agreements and call reports. Eight commenters provided no objection to the proposed changes.
The Agency's ability to recover on a loan guaranty is not limited to the actions of the current holder of the Note. For example, when a Lender acquires a guaranteed loan from another lender, the acquiring lender is ultimately responsible for any action resulting in a loss on the loan, whether the loss is the result of its actions or inaction, or the actions or inaction of the original lender. SBA is amending this section as proposed.
In § 120.660(a)(1)(ii), SBA is removing references to SBA Form 1085 from the current regulation, as proposed. SBA Form 1085 is no longer in use in the 7(a) Loan Program. SBA received only one comment and it was in support of the change. In § 120.660(a)(3), SBA is adding additional reasons under which SBA may temporarily suspend or revoke a Lender's privilege to participate in SBA's Secondary Market. As proposed, SBA may temporarily suspend or revoke a Lender from participation in SBA's Secondary Market when (1) a Lender receives from its primary Federal or state regulator (including SBA): (a) A cease and desist order; (b) a consent agreement affecting capital or commercial lending issues; or (c) a supervisory action citing unsafe or unsound banking practices or other items of concern to SBA that may create potential risk to SBA through loan sales; or (2) a Lender receives a going concern opinion issued by its auditor. SBA received eight comments all of which supported the proposed change with some modifications. The suggested modifications centered on better defining the phrase, “other items of concern to SBA . . .” and the practicality of providing SBA with notice within five business days from the issuance of the regulatory action or going concern opinion. SBA wants to avoid situations in which current supervisory actions from a Federal or state regulator are renamed, or new actions involving unsafe or unsound lending practices are created and are disclosed, but are not expressly listed in the SBA regulation.
SBA considered the comments provided. SBA has modified the text to provide a more complete explanation of supervisory actions which are subsequently renamed or have yet to be defined. This ensures that the grounds for temporary suspension or termination from SBA's Secondary Market are not limited by the prevailing terminology used by Federal or state regulators. Regarding the practicality of a Lender providing SBA notice, commenters raised the issue of disclosure of non-public supervisory actions and the date by which the required disclosure of public supervisory actions should be measured. At this time, Lenders will be required to notify SBA only for public actions.
SBA also modified the final rule to define the required notification date to SBA as five business days (or as soon as practicable thereafter) from the date that the regulatory action is placed into the public domain. This will establish a verifiable benchmark for when notice from the Lender is due to SBA. Note, SBA does not intend to require a Lender to disclose a non-public supervisory action unless SBA notifies the Lender that SBA has either an agreement with or consent from the regulator issuing the action. Lenders receiving a going concern opinion will have five business days (or as soon as practicable thereafter) from the date of the auditor's letter indicating a going concern opinion to provide written notice to SBA.
SBA also proposed to add a new paragraph (d) to this section to provide for early termination of a temporary suspension or revocation at the joint discretion of the D/FA and the D/OCRM, if warranted for good cause. SBA received eight comments regarding this proposed change, all in support, and SBA is adding the paragraph as proposed.
SBA also proposed in § 120.823(d)(4)(ii)(C) to clarify that individuals serving on the Loan Committee of a CDC do not have to be members of the CDC or the CDC's Board of Directors. SBA received 15 comments regarding this proposed change, all in support. Twelve of the commenters recommended § 120.823(d)(4)(ii)(A) also be revised for consistency with the proposed revision in § 120.823(d)(4)(ii)(C). SBA considered these comments and agrees that individuals who are not CDC members, shareholders, or Board members may be appointed by the Board of Directors to serve on the Loan Committee provided that the individual has background and expertise in financial risk management, commercial lending, or legal issues relating to commercial lending and is not associated with another CDC.
In order to ensure consistency in this section on Loan Committees, SBA will revise paragraphs (d)(4)(ii)(A), (d)(4)(ii)(B), (d)(4)(ii)(C) and (d)(4)(ii)(E) references to members of the Loan Committee. SBA will revise the terms “member” and “committee member” in this section to read “Loan Committee member”.
SBA also received one comment requesting reconsideration of SBA's general prohibition in § 120.820 against a CDC having an affiliation with a 7(a) Lender now that CDCs may offer 7(a) loans under the Community Advantage Pilot Program. Community Advantage is currently a pilot program—for which SBA has granted a regulatory waiver of the affiliation prohibition. SBA is not considering changes to this general prohibition at this time, and is adopting the changes to this section as described above.
Another commenter, a trade association, joined by seven other commenters, stated that, while they have no objection to the proposed change, they have concerns that SBA has virtually no incentive to limit the costs that it imposes on program participants for the review function. The trade association expressed concern that increasing oversight costs could, at some point, make program participation too expensive for some lenders, thus limiting small business' access to critically needed capital. The trade association recommended that SBA continue to find ways to make the OCRM review function as cost‐effective as possible for SBA and for program participants.
SBA disagrees that it has little incentive to limit the costs of lender oversight. SBA is committed to developing and operating a robust risk management program at the most efficient cost possible and to reducing costs where possible. SBA will continue to minimize its oversight costs and the fees it charges program participants through competitive bidding processes, using fixed price contracts where appropriate, contract monitoring, and efficiently coordinating the work with its contractors.
In addition, one commenter requested that SBA publish its lender oversight fees annually. SBA lender oversight fees do not always change from year-to-year, so it may not be necessary to publish each fee every year. However, generally, when a lender oversight fee changes, SBA communicates the fees to all 7(a) Lenders via SBA notice. SBA is adopting this section as proposed.
There were responses from 27 commenters concerning the proposed changes in this section. There were eight commenters in support of the changes. However, there were some concerns that SBA continues to cite SBA Form 750, Loan Guaranty Agreement (Deferred Participation), as the document that Lenders should rely on as “fully” setting forth 7(a) Loan Program Requirements, considering that the current version of the SBA Form 750 in use is outdated and may not be reflective of current policy and SBA Loan Program Requirements. There were eight commenters who were concerned about the SBA's intention when imposing a prior waiver provision—that is, whether the SBA Supervised Lender or CDC would be waiving only its defenses against having SBA bring the matter before the court, or whether it also would be waiving all of its defenses with respect to all of the actions that SBA may be seeking to enforce against the SBA Supervised Lender or CDC, and sought additional clarification on this point.
There were 18 commenters who voiced objection to the proposed language as overly broad and not necessary under the current regulations. The objecting commenters stated that, while they agree SBA has a right to regulate the 504 Loan Program, they believe that the right of SBA to appoint an uncontested receiver for an SBA Supervised Lender or CDC over-reaches the SBA's regulatory authority over these entities. The objectors believe the language in the proposed rule is unnecessarily broad in that it seeks to include a waiver of any and all defenses an SBA Supervised Lender or CDC may validly raise to an enforcement action by the SBA. Additionally, the commenters stated that while SBA may be able to manage and service the SBA loan portfolio, they believe SBA has no interest in managing and servicing the non-SBA loans of a CDC or an SBA Supervised Lender that is a Non-Federally Regulated Lender or managing the contracts CDCs may have with their state, city, or other governmental organizations.
SBA considered the receivership comments concerning SBA Supervised Lenders and CDCs, but determined that the proposed provisions that allow SBA to seek receiverships by consent will provide the Agency added flexibility in protecting and safeguarding the security and integrity of these federally funded loan programs. SBA is conditioning its guarantee of 7(a) loans made by SBA Supervised Lenders (except Other Regulated SBLCs) and 504 debentures after a certain date on consent to this relief in connection with an enforcement action because the injury to SBA and its supervision and regulatory oversight of the SBA Supervised Lender or CDC due to the SBA Supervised Lender's or CDC's default under its agreement(s) with SBA would be irreparable and the amount of damage would be difficult to ascertain, making this relief necessary. Consent to receivership is not without precedent in Federal agency practice and has been upheld by the courts as valid and legally enforceable. SBA identified an example of such a case in the proposed rule,
After careful consideration of comments, SBA believes that it is in the best interests of the taxpayers for SBA to have the added flexibility of seeking receiverships, if necessary or appropriate, when taking enforcement actions. However, in response to comments, SBA has revised the language of the proposed rule to clarify that along with the consent to the remedies in §§ 120.1500(c)(3) or 120.1500(e)(3), the SBA Supervised Lender or CDC waives in advance any right to contest the validity of the appointment of a receiver. SBA has not adopted the proposed regulatory text providing for a waiver in advance of any defenses to the relief sought by SBA.
While the objectors did support the need for proper oversight and supervision of SBA Supervised Lenders and CDCs, they also believe that SBA Supervised Lenders and CDCs should be afforded their constitutional right to notice and a hearing before being deprived of their property rights and interests. SBA considered the constitutional issue of due process/waiver of notice. Consent to receivership in favor of Federal agencies—including without notice—has been upheld in Federal court as valid, enforceable and meeting constitutional due process. SBA identified an example of such a case in the proposed rule,
As stated above, SBA considered the receivership comments concerning SBA Supervised Lenders and CDCs, but determined that the proposed provisions that allow SBA to seek receiverships by consent will provide the Agency with added flexibility in protecting and safeguarding the security and integrity of these federally funded loan programs. SBA is conditioning its guarantee of 7(a) loans made by SBA Supervised Lenders (except Other Regulated SBLCs) and 504 debentures after a certain date on consent to this relief in connection with an enforcement action because the injury to SBA and its supervision and regulatory oversight of the SBA Supervised Lender or CDC due to the SBA Supervised Lender's or CDC's default under its agreement(s) with SBA would be irreparable and the amount of damage would be difficult to ascertain, making this relief necessary. The consent to receivership does not mandate the appointment of a receiver in connection with every enforcement action. SBA will review the facts and circumstances of the enforcement action when deciding whether or not to seek the appointment of a receiver and in determining the scope of the receiver's duties and powers, including whether the receiver's duties and powers will be limited to taking possession of, servicing and/or selling or transferring the 7(a) or 504 loan portfolios.
This final rule is the result of a proposed rule that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined is not a “significant” regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. This is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
SBA has determined that this final rule 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. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
SBA's Business Loan Programs operate through the Agency's lending partners, which are 7(a) Lenders for the 7(a) Loan Program, Third Party Lenders and CDCs for the 504 Loan Program, Microloan Intermediaries for the Microloan Program, and ILP Intermediaries for the ILP Program. SBA's SBG Program operates through Surety Bond Companies. The Agency has participated in public forums and meetings which have included outreach to hundreds of its lending partners and surety bond companies to seek valuable
On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, which, among other objectives, is intended to ensure that an agency's regulatory costs are prudently managed and controlled so as to minimize the compliance burden imposed on the public. For every significant regulation an agency proposes to implement, this Executive Order requires the agency to (i) identify at least two existing regulations that the agency can cancel; and (ii) use the cost savings from the cancelled regulations to offset the cost of the new regulation. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda, which further emphasized the goal of the Administration to alleviate the regulatory burdens placed on the public. Under Executive Order 13777, agencies must evaluate their existing regulations to determine which ones should be repealed, replaced, or modified. In doing so, agencies should focus on identifying regulations that, among other things, eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; or implemented Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been rescinded or substantially modified. SBA has reviewed this final rule in light of these two new Executive Orders.
Regulation elimination as proposed for this rule will eliminate duplication of effort costs for sureties, lenders and certified development companies to develop computerized forms and sun-sets two prior SBA initiatives the CLP lender designations and the SBA Director Program for Systematically Important Secondary Market Broker-Dealers (SISMD Loan Program). The cost savings of sun-setting the two programs have already been absorbed by SBA so no further cost savings is anticipated.
The final rule increases the Quick Bond eligible contract limit in § 115.30 from $250,000 to $400,000. This action reduces administrative burden that results in cost savings to the sureties.
The following 29 regulations are removed as of the publication of this
(1) 13 CFR 120.194 Use of computer forms
(2) 13 CFR 120.441 How does a Lender become a CLP Lender
Subpart K—Establishment of an SBA Direct Program for Systematically Important Secondary Market Broker-Dealers (SISMD Loan Program) which consists of the following regulations:
(3) 13 CFR 120.1800 Definitions used in subpart K
(4) 13 CFR 120.1801 Program Purpose
(5) 13 CFR 120.1802 How does a broker-dealer participate in the SISMID Loan Program?
(6) 13 CFR 120.1810 What is a Systematically Important SBA Secondary Market Broker-Dealer (SISMBD)?
(7) 13 CFR 120.1820 What are the basic eligibility requirements for SBA designation as a Systemically Important Secondary Market Broker-Dealer?
(8) 13 CFR 120.1821 What is the process to obtain designation as a Systematically Important Secondary Market Broker-Dealer?
(9) 13 CFR 120.1822 What is the process to apply for an SISMBD Loan?
(10) 13 CFR 120.1823 Creditworthiness
(11) 13 CFR 120.1824 How will an SISMBD receive notice of an approval of denial of a loan or request for an advance under an SISMBD Loan?
(12) 13 CFR 120.1825 May an SISMBD request reconsideration after denial?
(13) 13 CFR 120.1830 What are the terms and conditions of an SBA loan to an SISMBD?
(14) 13 CFR 120.1831 Is there a limit to the number of SISMBD Loans or advances that an SISMBD may request from SBA?
(15) 13 CFR 120.1832 What is the minimum and maximum SISMBD Loan advance amount?
(16) 13 CFR 120.1833 May an SISMBD request an increase in the loan amounts?
(17) 13 CFR 120.1834 What fees are associated with an SISMBD Loan?
(18) 13 CFR 120.1840 What are the allowable uses of proceeds of an SISMBD Loan?
(19) 13 CFR 120.1850 Will the Collateral be held by SBA?
(20) 13 CFR 120.1860 How will the SISMBD Loan be disbursed?
(21) 13 CFR 120.1870 How does the SISMBD provide funds for the Premium?
(22) 13 CFR 120.1880 How will the loan be repaid?
(23) 13 CFR 120.1881 How are payments on the Collateral allocated between the SISMBD borrower and repayment of the SISMBD Loan?
(24) 13 CFR 120.1882 What happens if funds to make required loan payments are not generated from the Collateral?
(25) 13 CFR 120.1890 What is the maturity on a SISMBD Loan from SBA?
(26) 13 CFR 120.1891 What happens if an SISMBD is ineligible to receive an SISMBD Loan or an adverse?
(27) 13 CFR 120.1892 What happens if an SISMBD does not use SISMBD Loan funds for a statutorily mandated purpose?
(28) 13 CFR 120.1893 Data collections and reporting
(29) 13 CFR 120.1900 When does the Secondary Market Lending Authority Program end?
SBA has determined that this final rule imposes additional reporting requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). As described above, SBA proposed to require all participating sureties to notify SBA of all contracts that were successfully completed on a quarterly basis. SBA invited the public to comment on this proposed new report and to submit any comments by October 11, 2016.
SBA invited comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of SBA's functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (2) the accuracy of SBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology. Three comments were received related to the requirement of this proposed form. A discussion of the comments received is included in the section-by-section analysis of § 115.22. As stated above, SBA considered the comments, but will proceed with requiring the form as proposed. SBA will submit the final form and other documents required under the Paperwork Reduction Act to OMB for review and approval.
A summary description of this information collection, the respondents, and the estimate of the annual hour burden resulting from this new process is provided below. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering information needed, and completing and reviewing the responses.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory analysis” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Currently, there are 30 Sureties that participate in the SBG Program, and no part of this rule would impose any significant cost or burden on them. Although the rulemaking will impact all of the approximately 6,000 7(a) Lenders (some of which are small), all of the approximately 230 CDCs (all of which are small), all of the approximately 145 Microloan Intermediaries (most of which are small), and all of the approximately 35 ILP Intermediaries (most of which are small), SBA does not believe the impact will be significant. This rule will reduce the burden of the Agency's lending partners because they choose their own level of program participation (
SBA's final rule encompasses clear and transparent best practice guidance that aligns with the Agency's mission to increase access to capital for small businesses and facilitate American job preservation and creation by removing unnecessary regulatory requirements. A review of the summary and preamble provides more detailed discussion on the specific improvements that will reduce regulatory burdens and encourage increased program participation. For these reasons, SBA has determined that there is no negative impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Community development, Loan programs-business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Intermediary lending pilot program.
Claims, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Surety bonds.
Community development, Equal employment opportunity, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR parts 109, 115, and 120 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), and 636(l).
(a)
(b)
(c)
5 U.S.C. app 3; 15 U.S.C. 687b, 687c, 694a, 694b note; and Pub. L. 110-246, Sec. 12079, 122 Stat. 1651.
The Surety must submit a Quarterly Contract Completion Report within 45 days after the close of each fiscal year quarter ending December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30, that identifies each contract successfully completed during the quarter. The report shall include:
(a) The SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Number,
(b) Name of the Principal,
(c) The original Contract Dollar Amount,
(d) The revised Contract Dollar Amount (if applicable),
(e) The date of Contract completion, and
(f) A summary specifying the fee amounts paid to SBA by the Surety and Principal, the fee amounts due to SBA as a result of any increases in the Contract amount, and the fee amounts to be refunded to the Principal or rebated to the Surety as a result of any decreases in the Contract amount.
(b) * * * For a period of nine months following admission to the PSB program, the Surety must obtain SBA's prior written approval before executing a bond greater than $2 million so that SBA may evaluate the Surety's performance in its underwriting and claims and recovery functions. At the end of this nine month period, SBA may in its discretion extend this period to allow SBA to further evaluate the Surety's performance.
(a) * * * The Surety must present checks for additional fees due from the Principal and the Surety on any increases aggregating 25% of the original Contract or bond amount or $500,000, whichever is less, and attach such payments to the respective monthly bordereau. * * *
SBA reimburses a PSB Surety in the same percentages and under the same terms as set forth in § 115.31.
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(14), (h) and note, 636(a), (h) and (m), 650, 687(f), 696(3) and 697(a) and (e); Pub. L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115; Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504; Pub. L. 114-38, 129 Stat. 437.
An Eligible Passive Company must use loan proceeds only to acquire or lease, and/or improve or renovate, real or personal property (including eligible refinancing), that it leases to one or more Operating Companies for conducting the Operating Company's business, or to finance a change of ownership between the existing owners of the Eligible Passive Company. When the Operating Company is a co‐borrower on the loan, loan proceeds also may be used by the Operating Company for working capital and/or the purchase of other assets, including intangible assets, for the Operating Company's use as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of this section. (References to Operating Company in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section mean each Operating Company.) In the 504 loan program, if the Eligible Passive Company owns assets in addition to the real estate or other eligible long-term fixed assets, loan proceeds may not be used to finance a change of ownership between existing owners of the Eligible Passive Company unless the additional assets owned by the Eligible Passive Company are directly related to the real estate or other eligible long-term fixed assets, the amount attributable to the additional assets is de minimis, and the additional assets are excluded from the Project financing. Any ownership structure or legal form may qualify as an Eligible Passive Company. Any ownership structure or legal form may qualify as an Eligible Passive Company.
(a) * * *
(3) The lease between the Eligible Passive Company and the Operating Company must be in writing and must be subordinate to SBA's mortgage, trust deed lien, or security interest on the property. The Eligible Passive Company (as landlord) must furnish as collateral for the loan an assignment of all rents paid under the lease. The rent or lease payments cannot exceed the amount necessary to make the loan payment to the lender, and an additional amount to cover the Eligible Passive Company's direct expenses of holding the property, such as maintenance, insurance and property taxes;
(6) Each holder of an ownership interest constituting at least 20 percent of either the Eligible Passive Company or the Operating Company must guarantee the loan. The trustee shall execute the guaranty on behalf of any trust. When deemed necessary for credit or other reasons, SBA or, for a loan processed under an SBA Lender's delegated authority, the SBA Lender may require other appropriate individuals or entities to provide full or limited guarantees of the loan without regard to the percentage of their ownership interests, if any.
The addition and revision read as follows:
(e) The applicant may not use any of the proceeds to pay past-due Federal, state, or local payroll taxes, sales taxes, or other similar taxes that are required to be collected by the applicant and held in trust on behalf of a Federal, state, or local government entity.
(g) Any use restricted by §§ 120.201, 120.202, and 120.884 (specific to 7(a) loans and 504 loans respectively).
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * * When deemed necessary for credit or other reasons, SBA or, for a loan processed under an SBA Lender's delegated authority, the SBA Lender, may require other appropriate individuals or entities to provide full or limited guarantees of the loan without regard to the percentage of their ownership interests, if any.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3)
(b) * * * For a loan with a maturity of twelve (12) months or less, the Lender must pay the guaranty fee to
Unless otherwise allowed by SBA Loan Program Requirements, the Lender may charge and collect from the applicant or Borrower only the following fees and expenses:
(e)
The Lender or its Associates may not share in any premium received from the sale of an SBA guaranteed loan in the secondary market with a Service Provider, packager, or other loan-referral source.
The revision reads as follows:
(e) Be in good standing with SBA, as defined in § 120.420(f) (and determined by SBA in its discretion), and, as applicable, with its state regulator and be considered Satisfactory by its Federal Financial Institution Regulator (as determined by SBA and based on, for example, information in published orders/agreements and call reports); and
(a) In making its decision to grant or renew a delegated authority, SBA considers whether the Lender, as determined by SBA in its discretion:
(1) Has the continuing ability to evaluate, process, close, disburse, service, liquidate and litigate SBA loans. This includes the ability to develop and analyze complete loan packages. SBA may consider the experience and capability of Lender's management and staff.
(2) Has satisfactory SBA performance (as defined in § 120.410(a)(2));
(3) Is in compliance with SBA Loan Program Requirements (
(4) Has completed to SBA's satisfaction all required corrective actions;
(5) Whether Lender is subject to any enforcement action, order or agreement with a regulator or the presence of other regulatory concerns as determined by SBA; and
(6) Whether Lender exhibits other risk factors (
(b) Delegated authority decisions are made by the appropriate SBA official in accordance with Delegations of Authority, and are final.
(c) If delegated authority is approved or renewed, Lender must execute a Supplemental Guarantee Agreement, which will specify a term not to exceed two years. SBA may grant shortened renewals based on risk or any of the other delegated authority criteria. Lenders with less than 3 years of SBA lending experience will be limited to a term of 1 year or less.
(b) If SBA determines, at any time, that any of the events set forth in paragraph (a) of this section occurred in connection with that loan, SBA is entitled to recover any moneys paid on the guarantee plus interest from the Lender. In the exercise of its rights, SBA may utilize all legal means available, including offset and judicial remedies.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) Is in good standing with SBA (as the D/FA determines in his or her discretion), and is Satisfactory with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) if it is a national bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation if it is a bank not regulated by the OCC, or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) if it is a member as determined by SBA.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1) * * *
(ii) Any provisions in the contracts entered into by the parties, including SBA Forms 1086, 1088 and 1454;
(2) Knowingly submitting false or fraudulent information to the SBA or FTA; or
(3) A Lender's receipt, from its primary Federal or state regulator
(c)
(d)
(c) * * * Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission).
(c) * * * Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission).
(c) * * *
(5) No CDC Board member may serve on the Board of another CDC.
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Be chosen by the Board of Directors, and consist of individuals with a background in either financial risk management, commercial lending, or legal issues relating to commercial lending who are not associated with another CDC;
(B) Have a Quorum of at least five (5) Loan Committee members authorized to vote;
(C) Have at least two (2) Loan Committee members with commercial lending experience satisfactory to SBA;
(E) Consist of Loan Committee members who live or work in the Area of Operations of the State where the 504 project they are voting on is located unless the project falls under one of the exceptions listed in § 120.839.
A CDC may apply to make a 504 loan for a Project outside its Area of Operations by submitting a request to the 504 loan processing center. The applicant CDC must demonstrate that it can adequately fulfill its 504 program responsibilities for the 504 loan, including proper servicing. In addition, the CDC must have satisfactory SBA performance, as determined by SBA in its discretion. The CDC's Risk Rating, among other factors, will be considered in determining satisfactory SBA performance. Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission). The 504 loan processing center may approve the application if:
(c) * * * Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures, loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission);
(e) * * *
(3) Construction equipment (except for heavy duty construction equipment integral to the business' operations with a remaining useful life of a minimum of 10 years).
The revision reads as follows:
The revision reads as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(a) Results of monitoring, including an SBA Lender's, Intermediary's or NTAP's Risk Rating;
(b)
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(1) Where the costs that SBA incurs for a review, exam, monitoring or other lender oversight activity are specific to a particular 7(a) Lender, SBA will charge that 7(a) Lender a fee for the actual costs of conducting the review, exam, monitoring or other lender oversight activity; and
(2) Where the costs that SBA incurs for the lender oversight activity are not sufficiently specific to a particular Lender, SBA will assess a fee based on each 7(a) Lender's portion of the total dollar amount of SBA guarantees in SBA's total portfolio or in the relevant portfolio segment being reviewed or examined, to cover the costs of such activity. SBA may waive the assessment of this fee for all 7(a) Lenders owing less than a threshold amount below which SBA determines that it is not cost effective to collect the fee.
(c) * * * For the examinations or reviews conducted under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, SBA will bill each 7(a) Lender for the amount owed following completion of the examination, review or related activity. For monitoring conducted under paragraph (a)(3) of this section and the other lender oversight activity expenses incurred under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, SBA will bill each 7(a) Lender for the amount owed on an annual basis. * * *
(d) * * * In addition, a 7(a) Lender's failure to pay any of the fee components described in this section, or to pay interest, charges and penalties that have been charged, may result in a decision to suspend or revoke a participant's eligibility, limit a participant's delegated authority, or other remedy available under law.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(c) * * *
(3)
(e) * * *
(3) Apply to any Federal court of competent jurisdiction for the court to take exclusive jurisdiction, without notice, of the CDC, and SBA shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver of SBA's choosing to hold, administer, operate and/or liquidate the CDC; and to such injunctive or other equitable relief as may be appropriate. Without limiting the foregoing and with SBA's consent, the receiver may take possession of the portfolio of 504 loans and/or pending 504 loan applications, including for the purpose of carrying out an enforcement order under paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(6)
(b) * * *
(4)
(a) * * *
(4) Is in good standing with SBA (as the SBA determines), and is Satisfactory with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) if it is a national bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation if it is a bank not regulated by the OCC, the Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority if it is a member, the National Credit Union Administration if it is a credit union, as determined by SBA; and
* * * In addition, in order to complete such sale, Seller must have the purchaser of its rights to the Pool Loan execute an allonge to the Seller's First Lien Position 504 Loan Pool Guarantee Agreement in a form acceptable to SBA, acknowledging and accepting all terms of the Seller's First Lien Position 504 Loan Pool Guarantee Agreement, and deliver the executed original allonge and a copy of the corresponding First Lien Position 504 Loan Pool Guarantee Agreement to the CSA. All Pool Loan payments related to a Seller Receipt and Servicing Retention Amount proposed for sale will be withheld by the CSA pending SBA acknowledgement of receipt of all executed documents required to complete the transfer.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model AS332L2
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5116; email
On May 11, 2017, at 82 FR 21956, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0016, dated January 30, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopters with certain part-numbered attachment pins installed. EASA advises of three cracked attachment pins on a Model AS 332 L2 helicopter, which resulted from a combination of factors including corrosion that had initiated in the inner diameter area of the attachment pin chamfer. EASA states that if this condition is not detected and corrected, it may lead to failure of the attachment pin with loss of control of the helicopter. Due to design similarity, Model EC225LP helicopters are also affected by this issue.
For these reasons, EASA AD No. 2015-0016 requires repetitive inspections of the attachment pins for corrosion.
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 France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, 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 EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The EASA AD does not require an inspection of the protective coating of each attachment pin for Model EC225LP helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the protective coating of each attachment pin for both model helicopters. The EASA AD requires ensuring there are no corrosion pits without a corresponding corrective action. This AD requires replacing an attachment pin that has any pitting. The EASA AD requires a non-destructive inspection if in doubt about whether there is a crack, while this AD does not. Lastly, the EASA AD requires contacting and returning to Airbus Helicopters any attachment pin with a crack, and this AD does not.
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-05.00.99, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2014 (AS332-05.00.99), for Model AS332L2 helicopters and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-05A040, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2014 (EC225-05A040), for Model EC225LP helicopters. Airbus Helicopters advises of cracks discovered in attachment pins that resulted from a combination of factors, but mainly corrosion which initiated in the inner diameter at the chamfer. This service information specifies repetitively inspecting for corrosion and cracks and ensuring there are no corrosion pits in the attachment pins. If there is corrosion, this service information allows an attachment pin to be reworked up to four times before removing it from service. If there is a crack, this service information specifies contacting and sending the attachment pin to Airbus Helicopters.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 5 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.
For Model AS332L2 helicopters, there are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.
For Model EC225LP helicopters, which have ten attachment pins
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 the following helicopters, certificated in any category:
(1) Model AS332L2 helicopters with a main rotor (M/R) blade attachment pin (attachment pin) part number (P/N) 332A31-2123-00 or P/N 332A31-2115-20 installed; and
(2) Model EC225LP helicopters with an attachment pin P/N 332A31-3204-20 installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as corrosion or a crack in an attachment pin. This condition could result in loss of an M/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective September 25, 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) For Model AS332L2 helicopters, within 410 hours time-in-service (TIS), and for Model EC225LP helicopters within 660 hours TIS, remove each attachment pin and inspect the protective coating on the inside of the attachment pin for scratches and missing protective coating.
(i) If there is a scratch or any missing protective coating, sand the attachment pin to remove the varnish in the area depicted as “Area A” in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-05.00.99, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2014 (AS332-05.00.99), or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-05A040, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2014 (EC225-05A040), as applicable to your model helicopter.
(ii) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect for corrosion and pitting at the chamfer. An example of pitting is shown in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.3., Note 1, of AS332-05.00.99, and paragraph 3.B.2., Note 1, of EC225-05A040. If there is any corrosion, remove the corrosion. If there is any pitting, replace the attachment pin. Do not sand the attachment pin to remove a corrosion pit.
(iii) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect the inside and outside of the attachment pin for a crack in the areas depicted as “Area A” and “Area B” in Figure 1 of AS332-05.00.99 or EC225-05A040, as applicable to your model helicopter. Pay particular attention to the chamfer in “Area A.” If there is a crack, remove the attachment pin from service.
(2) Thereafter, for Model AS332L2 helicopters, at intervals not to exceed 825 hours TIS or 26 months, whichever occurs first; and for Model EC225LP helicopters, at intervals not to exceed 1,320 hours TIS or 26 months, whichever occurs first; perform the actions specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. Corrosion may be removed from an attachment pin as specified in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this AD a maximum of four times. If there is a fifth occurrence of corrosion on an attachment pin, before further flight, remove the attachment pin from service.
(3) Do not install an attachment pin P/N 332A31-2123-00, P/N 332A31-2115-20, or P/N 332A31-3204-20 on any helicopter unless you have complied with the actions in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5116; 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.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) No. 2015-0016, dated January 30, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor System.
(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) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-05.00.99, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2014.
(ii) Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-05A040, Revision 0, dated December 22, 2014.
(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(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), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the upper aft skin of the right wing at certain fastener holes along the rear spar upper chord. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, 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
Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing and Robert Simpson concurred with the content of the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect compliance with the actions specified in the NPRM.
We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change 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 final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the upper aft skin of the wings 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
We estimate that this AD affects 471 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57; Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the upper aft skin of the right wing at certain fastener holes along the rear spar upper chord. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the upper aft skin of the wings, which could result in the inability of a principle structural element to sustain limit load, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings from wing buttock line (WBL) 80 to WBL 155, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017. If any cracking is found, repair before further flight in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017.
For Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect for cracking of the upper aft skin of the wings, and do all applicable corrective actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this Service Bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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 Branch, 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 (g) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or 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.
For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1332, dated January 3, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) 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
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame common to the water tank support intercostal clip located between certain stringers. This AD requires inspections for any cracking of a certain fuselage frame, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change 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 final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1357, dated August 9, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspections for any cracking of a certain fuselage frame, and repair if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 140 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1357, dated August 9, 2016.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking found in a certain fuselage frame common to the water tank support intercostal clip located between certain stringers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking, which could grow in size and result in a severed frame. Multiple adjacent severed frames would result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 34,000 total flight cycles or within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any cracking in the fuselage frame at station (STA) 947.5 common to the water tank support intercostal clip located between stringers S-24R and S-25R, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1357, dated August 9, 2016.
(1) If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles.
(2) If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1357, dated August 9, 2016.
Accomplishing the repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1357, dated August 9, 2016, terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) 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 Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (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.
For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1357, dated August 9, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) 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 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 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 all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the underwing longerons. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the left and right side underwing longerons for any crack, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has released Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017. In the NPRM, we refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016, as the appropriate source of service information. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, corrects typographical errors, including errors in steps 3.c.(1) and 3.c.(2) of Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions, and provides additional access and inspection procedures. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, also adds a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the external surface of the fuselage skin for any crack, to the inspection of the fuselage skin that is part of the underwing longeron replacement procedure specified in Part 8 and Part 9 of the Accomplishment Instructions. No additional work is necessary on airplanes on which the inspection of the fuselage skin was already done as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016. We have determined that Revision 1 is also an appropriate source of service information and have revised this AD accordingly.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing expressed support for the NPRM.
Air France requested that we delay our AD action. The commenter pointed out that the manufacturer has not determined the root cause of underwing longeron failure and that because longeron cracking is a design defect, a design correction should only be implemented once during the life of the airplane. The commenter also pointed out that the service information would require multiple repairs that could be considered design corrections. The commenter stated that repetitive inspections should not be mandated until a final fix (design improvement) is available and that Air France believes that the safety concern (as stated in the service information) of fuel leaking into the forward cargo area could be addressed by A-Check level inspections. The commenter also indicated that they believe the structural integrity safety concern (as stated in the service information) could be addressed by existing inspections, specified in the Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), that are able to detect cracked longerons and surrounding related damages and are already continuously performed on the fleet.
We disagree with the commenter's request to delay this AD. The existing MPD inspections have been reviewed and do not adequately address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Additionally, the determinations of the unsafe conditions, mitigating action, and compliance times of this AD have been coordinated with the manufacturer, and we have determined that the actions specified in this AD are required to address the unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Air France requested that we increase the compliance time for the initial inspection and include independent compliance times for the left and right underwing longeron inspections. United Airlines (UAL), Air France, All Nippon Airways (ANA), and Cathay Pacific Airways (CPA) also requested that we extend the intervals for the repetitive inspections to coincide with either A or C-Check level inspections. Additionally, ANA expressed concern that if cracking is found during the repetitive inspections then the consequent repairs could inadvertently extend the amount of time that the airplane is on the ground. UAL and CPA also noted the proposed compliance time would result in operational disruptions if not aligned with a C-check. Air France stated there are already inspections contained in the MPD and that the initial inspection compliance time should take into account when cracking was found. Air France also stated that there is no safety issue when there is a cracked underwing longeron and there is no fuel leak into the forward cargo area or a structural integrity issue.
We disagree with the commenters' requests. As stated previously, the existing MPD inspections have been reviewed and do not provide an acceptable level of safety for the affected airplanes for the identified unsafe condition. We have determined that the compliance times specified in this AD are necessary to address the identified unsafe conditions. However, we will consider requests for approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOC), including extensions of the compliance times, if sufficient data is
ANA requested that we exclude Boeing Model 777-200 airplanes that do not have a center fuel tank from the applicability of the proposed AD. ANA pointed out that since the Boeing Model 777-200 airplanes do not have a center fuel tank, a fuel leak from the center fuel tank and subsequent possible fire cannot occur.
We disagree with the request to exclude Boeing Model 777-200 airplanes from the applicability of this AD. The possibility of a fuel leak into the forward cargo area and subsequent possible fire is not the only safety concern. Severe cases of uncorrected longeron cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. As stated previously, the determinations of the unsafe conditions, mitigating action, and compliance times in this AD have been coordinated with the manufacturer. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
ANA requested that we include an alternative modified repetitive inspection program in the NPRM. ANA specifically requested that the alternative modified repetitive inspection program match with their C-check level inspection program for the non-destructive inspection and for the detailed inspection at the “line maintenance” interval within times since certain inspections. ANA pointed out that the manufacturer has agreed that the requested alternative inspection program meets the inspection specifications in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016.
We disagree with the request to include an alternative modified repetitive inspection program in this AD. The commenter did not provide technical justification for such a change. We have determined that the compliance times specified in this AD are necessary to address the identified unsafe conditions. However, we will consider requests for approval of AMOCs, including extensions of the compliance times, if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that a different compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. Additionally, operators may do the required inspections earlier than the compliance times required by the AD. For the inspection options specified in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, an operator can change an inspection method at their discretion to meet operational needs, and the previous inspection determines the interval to the next inspection. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Emirates requested that we mandate repair and future modification (for terminating action) as identical procedures to avoid incurring duplicate expenses. Emirates mentioned that the repair work is extensive (required resources, materials, and ground time) and the repair kit is expensive. Emirates pointed out that the manufacturer is expected to issue a modification service bulletin to terminate the inspection specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016, and that the FAA is expected to mandate the terminating modification. The commenter also pointed out that the modification is expected to be extensive and require a modification kit that is also expensive, and concluded that the requirement of multiple kits for the repair and future planned modification would cause operators to incur duplicate expenses.
We disagree with the request because there is currently no modification kit available even though it might be possible to mitigate the unsafe condition through a modification to the underwing longeron. The inspections and repairs required by this AD are necessary to provide an acceptable level of safety for the affected airplanes. However, as stated previously, we will consider requests for AMOCs, including those that allow for revised service information, repairs, or terminating actions, if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that different service information, repairs, or terminating actions will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
ANA requested that we specifically include certain alternate special tools in the NPRM to measure the thickness of the fuel barrier sealants. The commenter indicated that they do not have the special tools that are specified in the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) (which is specified as an accepted procedure to repair the secondary fuel barrier in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016).
We disagree that alternate special tools should be specified in this AD because this AD does not mandate using a specific tool. This AD requires operators to perform inspections and repairs in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, refer to a specific procedure in the AMM as an accepted procedure to repair the secondary fuel barrier. However, we do not mandate the AMM procedure in this AD; therefore, operators may repair the secondary fuel barrier using accepted methods in accordance with their maintenance or inspection program. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
ANA requested that we allow simultaneous replacement of the longerons rather than completing one side before beginning work on the opposite side. ANA indicated that they prefer to start work on the opposite side when 50% final fastener installation has been completed on the initial longeron replacement. ANA also pointed out that the manufacturer has agreed that this method is structurally acceptable.
We disagree that simultaneous replacement of the longerons should be included in this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017; specify that only one underwing longeron is to be removed and replaced at a time. However, as stated previously, we will consider requests for AMOCs if sufficient data is submitted to substantiate that a different method of completion will provide an acceptable level of safety. 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 final rule 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 final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections, ultrasonic inspections, and HFEC inspections of the left and right side longerons, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, also includes an additional surface HFEC inspection of the external surface of the fuselage skin.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 201 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that are required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions, other than the replacement, specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage and 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the underwing longerons. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the underwing longerons, which could result in fuel leakage into the forward cargo area and consequent increased risk of a fire or, in a more severe case, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in tables 1 through 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016: Do detailed inspections for any crack of the left and right side underwing longerons; or do detailed inspections, and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or ultrasonic inspections, as applicable, for any crack of the left and right side underwing longerons; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the times specified in tables 1 through 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016, as applicable. Replacing an underwing longeron, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017; except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph for that longeron only.
For airplanes on which any longeron replacement has been done as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081: At the applicable times specified in tables 7 through 14 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016, do detailed inspections of all replaced longerons for any crack, or do detailed inspections and ultrasonic inspections of all replaced longerons for any crack, and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017; except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in tables 7 through 14 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017; specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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 (i)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, dated September 8, 2016.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0081, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017.
(3) For Boeing 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 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the lanyard length of the passenger drop down oxygen masks is too long. This AD requires replacing the existing oxygen mask lanyards with lanyards of the correct length. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar A. Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 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 CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-15, dated May 18, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ”the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:
Bombardier (BA) has determined that the lanyard length of the passenger drop down oxygen masks is too long and may cause the safety pin tethered to the opposite end of the lanyard to remain engaged in the oxygen flow mechanism when the mask is pulled to the passenger's face. In an emergency situation where oxygen is required, it is possible that certain passengers may not receive oxygen supply due to the increased length of the lanyard.
BA has issued service bulletin (SB) 605-35-003 to replace the existing lanyards in the passenger oxygen box assemblies with lanyards of the correct length. Incorporation of this BA SB will restore the proper oxygen flow functionality to the passenger oxygen masks in the event of an emergency.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of [Bombardier] SB 605-35-003.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 605-35-003, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2016. This service information describes procedures for replacing the existing oxygen mask lanyards with lanyards of the correct length. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
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 September 25, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 5702 through 5705 inclusive, 5707, 5709, 5710, 5712, 5714, 5715, 5718, 5719, 5722, 5723, 5725, 5727, 5728, 5731 through 5733 inclusive, 5735, 5736, 5740, 5742, 5743, 5745, 5746, 5748 through 5750 inclusive, 5752 through 5754 inclusive, 5756 through 5758 inclusive, 5760 through 5762 inclusive, 5764 through 5766 inclusive, 5768 through 5770 inclusive, 5772 through 5774 inclusive, 5776 through 5780 inclusive, 5782 through 5787 inclusive, 5790, 5791, 5793, 5794, 5796, 5797, 5799, 5800, 5802, 5803, 5805 through 5814 inclusive, 5816, 5818 through 5820 inclusive, 5823 through 5829 inclusive, 5831 through 5853 inclusive, 5856, 5857, 5859 through 5863 inclusive, 5865 through 5874 inclusive, 5876 through 5881 inclusive, 5883 through 5888 inclusive, 5890 through 5894 inclusive, 5896 through 5898 inclusive, 5900 through 5906 inclusive, 5908 through 5911 inclusive, 5913 through 5938 inclusive, 5940 through 5947 inclusive, 5949 through 5980 inclusive, 5982 through 5985 inclusive, 5987, and 5988.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the lanyard length of the passenger drop down oxygen masks is too long. The length of the oxygen mask lanyard might cause the safety pin tethered to the opposite end of the lanyard to remain engaged in the oxygen flow mechanism when the mask is pulled to the passenger's face. We are issuing this AD to prevent improper oxygen flow functionality to the passenger oxygen masks in the event of an emergency.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 2,400 flight hours or 60 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, replace the existing lanyards in the passenger oxygen box assemblies with lanyards of the correct length, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-003, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-003, dated January 28, 2016; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-003, Revision 01, dated February 10, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-15, dated May 18, 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,
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-003, Revision 02, dated April 18, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and 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). This AD was prompted by reports of cracks initiating at the upper radius of a certain frame and a determination that the current inspection procedure is not reliable in detecting certain cracking of the forward fitting of the frame. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward fitting of a certain frame, and related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, 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 Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and 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). The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0150, dated July 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all. The MCAI states:
During scheduled maintenance inspections on the fuselage, cracks initiating at the upper radius of frame (FR) 47 have been reported on several aeroplanes. Similar damage was also discovered on the A300 fatigue test fuselage.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.
Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-0246, SB A300-53-6029 and SB A300-53-9014 to provide inspection instructions and, consequently, DGAC France issued AD F-2006-016 to require repetitive inspections and corrective action.
Since that [French] AD was issued, further investigation led to the conclusion that the current ultrasonic inspection performed in accordance with Airbus SB A300-53-0246 Revision 06, or SB A300-53-6029 Revision 08, or SB A300-53-9014 Revision 01, as applicable, was not reliable to detect deep crack going downward.
Consequently, to ensure the crack depth is correctly measured whatever the crack direction, Airbus developed a new nondestructive testing method [eddy current]
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2006-016, which is superseded, but requires the accomplishment of repetitive SDI to replace the previously required ultrasonic inspections [and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary].
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 08, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016 (for Model A300 series airplanes); and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 12, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes). The service information describes procedures for doing an SDI for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, and related investigative and corrective actions. 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 132 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related investigative and corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
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.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
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 September 25, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2007-26-14, Amendment 39-15316 (73 FR 2803, January 16, 2008) (“AD 2007-26-14”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, except airplanes that have been repaired as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0370; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6144, as applicable.
(1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks initiating at the upper radius of frame (FR) 47 and a determination that the current inspection procedure is not reliable in detecting certain cracking of the forward fitting of FR 47. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, which could propagate and result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before exceeding 10,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a special detailed inspection (SDI) for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius on the left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,150 flight cycles, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 08, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 12, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016.
For airplanes previously inspected as specified in the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this AD and on which no cracking was found: Within 4,150 flight cycles after the most recent inspection, do the inspection for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 06, dated October 19, 2005.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 07, dated September 9, 2008.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 08, dated October 19, 2005.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 09, dated September 9, 2008.
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 10, dated July 9, 2009.
(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 11, dated September 28, 2009.
For airplanes on which any crack was found during any inspection done as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246 or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, as applicable, and on which any abnormal load event, such as hard landing or flight in excessive turbulence, occurred within 3 months before the effective date of this AD or occurs on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 3 months after each event, accomplish an SDI for cracking of the FR 47 forward fitting upper radius, left-hand and right-hand sides of the fuselage, in accordance with the applicable Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. If, during this 3-month period, another abnormal load event occurs, and if no SDI has yet been accomplished, before further flight after the second event, obtain corrective action instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), and accomplish those instructions accordingly.
If, during any SDI as required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, do the applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, and obtain additional corrective action instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA, and accomplish those instructions accordingly before further flight.
Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each SDI inspection required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
Accomplishing any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2007-26-14 for the inspected airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0150, 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 Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0246, Revision 08, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 12, including Appendix 1, dated April 13, 2016.
(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:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 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 superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-16-01 for MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI), Model MD900 helicopters. AD 2014-16-01 required an eddy current inspection of the main rotor upper hub assembly (upper hub) for a crack. This AD requires additional inspections and replacing the fillet seal. This AD was prompted by three additional reports of upper hub cracks. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax 480-346-6813; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Eric Schrieber, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5348; email
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2014-16-01, Amendment 39-17925 (79 FR 45322, August 5, 2014) and add a new AD. AD 2014-16-01 applied to MDHI Model MD900 helicopters, serial numbers 900-00008 through 900-00140, with an upper hub part number (P/N) 900R2101006-105, -107, -109, or -111 installed. AD 2014-16-01 required eddy current inspecting the upper hub and replacing it if there is a crack. The NPRM published in the
The NPRM was prompted by reports of three additional cracks found in the MD900 fleet. These cracks were not discovered by the one-time eddy current inspection required by AD 2014-16-01, but were found during regular maintenance of the upper hub. The NPRM proposed to require for MDHI
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an 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.
MDHI has issued Service Bulletin SB900-125, dated February 19, 2016, which describes procedures for repetitive visual and eddy current inspections of the upper hub upper and lower flexbeam bolthole areas and for applying a fillet seal on the interface of the bushing and the flex beam retention bolt hole.
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
The service information applies to upper hubs with 1,000 or more hours TIS. This AD applies to all upper hubs regardless of hours TIS. The service information applies to upper hub P/N 900R2101006-107 and -109; this AD also applies to upper hub P/N 900R2101006-105 and -111.
We estimate that this AD affects 23 helicopters of U.S. Registry. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.
Inspecting the fillet seal around the flexbeam boltholes (100 hour TIS inspection) requires about 1 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a cost of $1,955 for the fleet, per inspection cycle. Inspecting the flexbeam area and lead leg shims and bushings (annual inspection) requires about 2 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $170 and a cost of $3,910 for the fleet, per inspection cycle. Eddy current inspecting (1,000 hour TIS inspection) the upper hub requires about 2 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $170 and a cost of $3,910 for the fleet.
If required, replacing the upper hub requires about 11 work-hours, and required parts would cost about $15,998, for a cost per helicopter of $16,933. If required, replacing a missing or damaged fillet seal requires about .5 work-hour, and required parts cost would be minimal, for a cost per helicopter of $43.
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 have 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that a regulatory distinction is required, 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 applies to Model MD900 helicopters with main rotor upper hub assembly (upper hub) part number 900R2101006-105, -107, -109, or -111 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a cracked upper hub. This condition could result in failure of the upper hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD supersedes AD 2014-16-01, Amendment 39-17925 (79 FR 45322, August 5, 2014).
This AD becomes effective September 25, 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) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS:
(i) Inspect the fillet seal around each flexbeam bolthole to determine whether it adheres properly to the hub or bushing or is missing. Indications of an improperly
(ii) Using a light and a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect the area outside of the fillet seal around each flexbeam bolthole on the top of the upper hub assembly for a crack. If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the upper hub assembly.
(2) Within 12 months, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months:
(i) Remove the paint and primer from the area around each flexbeam bolthole on top of the upper hub. Remove the fillet seal from the mating surface of each bushing and the top of the upper hub.
(ii) Using a light and a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect the area around each flexbeam bolthole for a crack. If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the upper hub assembly.
(iii) Inspect each lead leg shim and bushing for corrosion around the flexbeam boltholes on the bottom of the upper hub in the flexbeam pockets. If there is corrosion, before further flight:
(A) Remove the lead leg shim from the flexbeam pocket and clean the area adjacent to the flexbeam bolthole to remove any corrosion within maximum repair damage limits. If the corrosion exceeds maximum repair damage limits, replace the upper hub assembly.
(B) Using a light and a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect the area around the flexbeam bolthole for a crack. If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the upper hub assembly.
(iv) Replace the fillet seal as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD.
(3) Within 1,000 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 hours TIS:
(i) Eddy current inspect the areas adjacent to each flexbeam bolthole, top and bottom, for a crack. This eddy current inspection must be performed by a Level II or higher technician with the American Society for Nondestructive Testing ASNT-TC-1A, European Committee for Standardization CEN EN 4179, Military Standard MIL-STD-410, National Aerospace Standard NAS410, or equivalent certification who has performed an eddy current inspection within the last 12 months. If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the upper hub assembly.
(ii) Replace the fillet seal as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Eric Schrieber, Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5348; 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.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor Head.
(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) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB900-125, dated February 19, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For MD Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax 480-346-6813; or at
(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 all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes and FALCON 2000 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during ground maintenance, a Model FALCON 2000 airplane experienced a loss of hydraulic pressure affecting both hydraulic systems due to damage to both brake hoses on the main landing gear (MLG). This AD requires an inspection for certain brake hoses, installation of protective wraps or installation of certain brake hoses, and replacement of certain brake hoses. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes and FALCON 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0255, dated October 23, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes and FALCON 2000 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During ground maintenance, a Falcon 2000 aeroplane experienced a loss of hydraulic pressure, affecting both hydraulic systems.
The investigation results revealed that this event was due to damage to both brake hoses on the same main landing gear (MLG), which chafed against the torque link assembly during MLG extension/retraction cycle. The Part Numbers (P/N) of the affected brake hoses are P/N AE705317-1 and P/N 00-200-1268, which are made of a braided stainless steel sleeve.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of braking during landing or a rejected take-off, possibly resulting in a runway excursion. In addition, there is a risk of fire if the leaking brake hydraulic fluid reaches hot parts.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the brake hoses to identify the P/N and determine the presence of protection against chafing and, depending on findings, installation of protective wraps or replacement of the brake hoses with serviceable parts that have a Dacron sleeve protection.
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.
Dassault Aviation requested that the “Applicability” paragraph of the proposed AD be clarified. Dassault Aviation stated the “Applicability” paragraph should be clarified to state that the proposed AD affects Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes (including all commercial variants) and FALCON 2000 airplanes. Dassault Aviation stated that all commercial variants include F50EX airplanes.
We agree to clarify the applicability of this AD. Paragraph (c) of this AD specifies all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes and FALCON 2000 airplanes. The applicability of this AD identifies model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. We have revised this AD by adding a new Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD to state that Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes include all commercial variants, including F50EX airplanes.
NetJets requested that we revise the compliance time threshold in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. NetJets commented that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD requires that the protective wrap installation be performed concurrently with paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. NetJets stated that if the compliance time threshold in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD was changed to “within 9 months after the effective date of this AD,” it would allow a records review per paragraph (g) and compliance with paragraph (h) without unnecessarily grounding airplanes and also maintain the intended compliance threshold of the NPRM. NetJets stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD may be performed by a records inspection, which could be accomplished independently of access to the airplane and could possibly ground an airplane due to records discrepancies well before the compliance time threshold specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include a compliance time of 9 months, which corresponds with the compliance time in the MCAI.
NetJets requested that the NPRM be revised to include Messier-Dowty service information as an optional method of compliance. NetJets stated that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD specifies compliance using Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011, and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009, which incorporate Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin C23791-32-062, dated February 22, 2011, and Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin D23345-32-020, dated May 14, 2009, respectively. Net Jets stated that new and overhauled landing gear include compliance information with the Messier-Dowty service information, but not with the Dassault service information; therefore, compliance with the Messier-Dowty service information should be included as optional methods of compliance with paragraph (i) of the proposed AD in addition to the Dassault service information.
We agree with the commenter's request. We agree that in the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009, specifies to replace the MLG brake hose using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin C23791-32-062, dated February 22, 2011, and Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin D23345-32-020, dated May 14, 2009, as applicable. For clarification, we have added Note 2 to paragraphs (h)(2) and (i) of this AD to state that Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin C23791-32-062, dated February 22, 2011; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin D23345-32-020, dated May 14, 2009; as additional sources of guidance for doing the replacement of certain brake hoses.
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 have reviewed the following Dassault service information.
• Dassault Service Bulletin F50-510, Revision 2, dated December 20, 2012; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-382, Revision 2, dated May 12, 2011. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the brake hoses to identify whether brake hoses having certain part numbers are
• Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009. This service information describes replacement of certain brake hoses. 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 course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 302 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary installations and replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these installations and replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
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 September 25, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes and FALCON 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes include all commercial variants, including F50EX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during ground maintenance, a Model FALCON 2000 airplane experienced a loss of hydraulic pressure affecting both hydraulic systems due to damage to both
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the brake hoses to identify whether any brake hose having part number (P/N) AE705317-1 or P/N 00-200-1268 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the brake hose can be conclusively determined from that review.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, it is determined that any brake hose having P/N AE705317-1 or P/N 00-200-1268 is installed, within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
(1) Install protective wraps on the brake hoses, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-510, Revision 2, dated December 20, 2012; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-382, Revision 2, dated May 12, 2011; as applicable.
(2) Install brake hoses having P/N 00-200-1534 that are fitted with Dacron sleeves, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009; as applicable.
Note 2 to paragraphs (h)(2) and (i) of this AD: Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin C23791-32-062, dated February 22, 2011; and Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009, refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin D23345-32-020, dated May 14, 2009; as additional sources of guidance for doing the replacement.
Within 6,000 flight cycles, or within 149 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Replace brake hoses having P/N AE705317-1 and P/N 00-200-1268 with brake hoses having P/N 00-200-1534 that are fitted with Dacron sleeves, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009; as applicable. Once brake hoses having P/N 00-200-1534 are fitted in an MLG leg, no further action is required for that MLG leg, as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, it is determined that the airplane is equipped with an MLG leg assembly with a part number specified in table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD, the requirement of paragraph (h) of this AD is not applicable, provided that the MLG leg assembly has not been modified in service after its installation on an airplane.
Note 3 to paragraph (j) of this AD: The parts specified in table 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD are known to be delivered with brake hoses having P/N 00-200-1534 that are fitted with Dacron sleeves.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a brake hose having P/N AE705317-1 or P/N 00-200-1268 on any airplane, unless the brake hose has been inspected to verify that protective wraps are installed on the hose, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F50-510, Revision 2, dated December 20, 2012; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-382, Revision 2, dated May 12, 2011; as applicable.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a brake hose having P/N AE705317-1 or P/N 00-200-1268, or an MLG leg or shock absorber equipped with a brake hose having P/N AE705317-1 or P/N 00-200-1268, after the actions in paragraphs (h)(2) or (i) of this AD are done.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Dassault Service Bulletin F50-510, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2010; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-382, Revision 1, dated December 15, 2010.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2013-0255, dated October 23, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Dassault Service Bulletin F50-510, Revision 2, dated December 20, 2012.
(ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F50-518, dated April 14, 2011.
(iii) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-368, dated May 29, 2009.
(iv) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-382, Revision 2, dated May 12, 2011.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-20-09, which applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2014-20-09 required an inspection for missing clamps that are required to provide positive separation between the alternating current (AC) feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires removing airplanes from the AD applicability. This AD was prompted by reports of missing clamps that are required to provide positive separation between the AC feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-20-09, Amendment 39-17982 (79 FR 59630, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-09”). AD 2014-20-09 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued AD 2014-20-09, the FAA has determined that certain airplane serial numbers that are in a pre-modification MS 4M153025 configuration have sufficient space between the AC feeder cables and the landing gear alternate extension hydraulic line, and do not pose an in-flight fire risk. Therefore, these airplanes are not subject to the identified unsafe condition.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-16R1, effective July 26, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During production checks, it was found that the appropriate clamps required to provide positive separation between the AC feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension were omitted. The AC feeder cable could sag and be in direct contact with the swage fitting of the landing gear alternate extension hydraulic line, resulting in chafing of the AC feeder cable. The chafed and arcing AC feeder cable could puncture the adjacent hydraulic line. In combination with the use of the alternate extension system, this could result in an in-flight fire.
The original issue of this [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate the incorporation of [Bombardier] service bulletin (SB) 84-24-53 to * * * [do a general visual inspection for the presence of correctly installed clamps] and rectify, as necessary, for proper clamp installation.
Bombardier, Inc. has revised [Bombardier] SB 84-24-53 to remove serial numbers 4001 through 4034 from the Effectivity section, as it was determined that these serial numbers are Pre-Mod MS 4M153025, which allowed sufficient space between the AC feeder cables and the landing gear alternate extension hydraulic line to not pose an in-flight fire risk. Accordingly, revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to revise the Applicability section to reflect the Effectivity changes in [Bombardier] SB 84-24-53 Revision B, dated 10 September 2015.
The related investigative action is a general visual inspection of the AC
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.
Horizon Air requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD reference only the actions required for compliance. Horizon Air stated that incorporating the service bulletin job set-up and close-out sections as a requirement of the AD restricts an operator's ability to perform other maintenance in conjunction with the incorporation of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015. Horizon Air asserted that only paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015, should be referenced.
We agree with Horizon Air's request to exclude the “Job Set-up” and “Close Out” sections of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015, for the reasons provided. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require accomplishment of paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015.
Horizon Air requested that the proposed AD be changed to allow credit for previous actions in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, dated May 11, 2012; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013; either up to the effective date of this AD; or within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months from November 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-20-09), whichever occurs first. Horizon Air stated that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD only allows credit for actions performed before November 7, 2014. Horizon Air noted that the compliance for AD 2014-20-09 is within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of November 7, 2014 (and AD 2014-20-09 specifies that the actions be done in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013).
We partially agree. We agree that credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD done using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013, should be allowed up until the effective date of this AD. However, we do not agree to allow credit for Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, dated May 11, 2012, beyond November 7, 2014. AD 2014-20-09 only gives credit for Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, dated May 11, 2012, before November 7, 2014. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD accordingly.
We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to remove the statement that only Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015, may be used after the effective date of this AD because that statement is not necessary in this AD.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously
• 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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for installation of clamps between the AC feeder cables and hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension, and related investigative and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
This AD merely removes certain airplanes from the applicability of this AD, and, therefore, adds no new actions or economic burden.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C.
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 September 25, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014-20-09, Amendment 39-17982 (79 FR 59630, October 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-09”).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4035 through 4347 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.
This AD was prompted by reports of missing clamps that are required to provide positive separation between the alternating current (AC) feeder cables and the hydraulic line of the landing gear alternate extension. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the AC feeder cable. A chafed and arcing AC feeder cable could puncture the adjacent hydraulic line, which, in combination with the use of the alternate extension, could result in an in-flight fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-20-09, with revised service information having a reduced Effectivity. Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after November 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-20-09), whichever occurs earlier: Do a general visual inspection for correctly installed clamps between the AC feeder cables and hydraulic line, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before November 7, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-20-09), using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, dated May 11, 2012. This service bulletin is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD, using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision A, dated May 16, 2013. This service bulletin was incorporated by reference in AD 2014-20-09.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-16R1, effective July 26, 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 Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-24-53, Revision B, dated September 10, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 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.
This action modifies VOR Federal airways V-7 and V-67, in the eastern United States due to the planned decommissioning of the Graham, TN, VORTAC navigation aid.
Effective date 0901, October 12, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
On March 6, 2017, the FAA published in the
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) wrote that, for those VOR NAVAIDs that are to be decommissioned and for those airways that are correspondingly removed, the FAA should create an RNAV waypoint at the previous NAVAID location and retain all fixes and intersections along that route by amending their definition to that of an RNAV waypoint. The impacted air traffic control facilities conducted a thorough review of their operations in the areas affected by the route changes to determine which fixes and intersections along the route segments being removed were necessary for continuing to support the facilities' operations and for navigation purposes through the area. As a result, the VALER fix is the only fix being retained to supplement the existing adjacent fixes, waypoints, and navigation aids in the areas that the V-7 and V-67 route segments are being removed. Additionally, the Graham VORTAC is currently functioning as a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) only facility and is planned to be retained and charted as a DME facility with the “GHM” three-letter identifier. The change will be reflected in all appropriate publications and procedures prior to decommissioning the Graham VORTAC. Consequently, the FAA does not plan to replace the Graham VORTAC or fixes along the removed route segments with RNAV waypoints.
One commenter noted that V-124, which is also linked to the Graham VORTAC, is not addressed in this action. V-124 is being amended through a separate action for the decommissioning of the Jacks Creek, TN, VOR/DME. On June 7, 2017, the Jacks Creek final rule was published in the
A third comment noted concern about the length of the gaps in the amended airways V-7 and V-67. However, as the commenter admitted, this is a non-issue since 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2) requires that aircraft conducting IFR flight be equipped with navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown. Additionally, the commenter called the route changes an important step toward implementation of the NextGen program.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-7, and V-67, due to the planned decommissioning of the Graham, TN, VORTAC. The route changes are described below.
V-7: V-7 extends between Dolphin, FL, and Sawyer, MI. This rule removes the Graham, TN, VORTAC from the route which creates a gap in the route
V-67: V-67 extends between the Choo Choo, TN, VORTAC and the Rochester, MN, VOR/DME. This rule removes the Graham, TN, VORTAC from the route which creates a gap in the route between Shelbyville, TN, and Cunningham, KY. Therefore, the amended route extends between Choo Choo, TN, and Shelbyville, TN, as currently described; then between Cunningham, KY, and Rochester, MN, as currently described. This action also corrects the state location for the Choo Choo VORTAC to reflect Tennessee.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation because the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-7, and V-67, due to the planned decommissioning of the Graham, TN, VORTAC. qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 299° and Lee County, FL, 120° radials; Lee County; Lakeland, FL; Cross City, FL; Seminole, FL; Wiregrass, AL; INT Wiregrass 333° and Montgomery, AL, 129° radials; Montgomery; Vulcan, AL; to Muscle Shoals, AL. From Central City, KY; Pocket City, IN; INT Pocket City 016° and Terre Haute, IN, 191° radials; Terre Haute; Boiler, IN; Chicago Heights, IL; INT Chicago Heights 358° and Falls, WI, 170° radials; Falls; Green Bay, WI; Menominee, MI; to Sawyer, MI. The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.
From Choo Choo, TN; to Shelbyville, TN. From Cunningham, KY; Marion, IL; Centralia, IL; INT Centralia 010° and Vandalia, IL, 162° radials; Vandalia; Spinner, IL; Burlington, IA; Iowa City, IA; Cedar Rapids, IA; Waterloo, IA; to Rochester, MN.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission” or “FTC”) is amending its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by updating the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (the “Registry”) as required by the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007.
This rule is effective October 1, 2017.
Copies of this document are available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site:
Ami Joy Dziekan, (202) 326-2648, BCP, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room CC-9225, Washington, DC 20580.
To comply with the Do-Not-Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-188, 122 Stat. 635) (“Act”), the Commission is amending the TSR by updating the fees entities are charged for accessing the Registry as follows: The revised rule increases the annual fee for access to the Registry for each area code of data from $61 to $62 per area code, and increases the maximum amount that will be charged to any single entity for accessing area codes of data from $16,714 to $17,021. The fee per area code of data during the second six months of an entity's annual subscription period increases from $30 to $31.
These increases are in accordance with the Act, which specifies that beginning after fiscal year 2009, the dollar amounts charged shall be increased by an amount equal to the amounts specified in the Act, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the average of the monthly consumer price index (for all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor) (“CPI”) for the most recently ended 12-month period ending on June 30 exceeds the CPI for the 12-month period
The determination whether a fee change is required and the amount of the fee change involves a two-step process. First, to determine whether a fee change is required, we measure the change in the CPI from the time of the previous increase in fees. There was an increase in the fees for fiscal year 2017. Accordingly, we calculated the change in the CPI since last year, and the increase was 1.84 percent. Because this change is over the one percent threshold, the fees will change for fiscal year 2018.
Second, to determine how much the fees should increase this fiscal year, we use the calculation specified by the Act set forth above, the percentage change in the baseline CPI applied to the original fees for fiscal year 2009. The average value of the CPI for July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 was 211.702; the average value for July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 was 242.656, an increase of 14.62 percent. Applying the 14.62 percent increase to the base amount from fiscal year 2009, leads to an increase from $61 to $62 in the fee from last year for access to a single area code of data for a full year for fiscal year 2018. The actual amount is $61.89, but when rounded, pursuant to the Act, the amount is $62. The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year increases from $30 to $31 (rounded from $30.95). The maximum amount charged increases to $17,021 (rounded from $17,021.07).
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the information collection requirements in the Amended TSR and assigned the following existing OMB Control Number: 3084-0097. The amendments outlined in this Final Rule pertain only to the fee provision (§ 310.8) of the Amended TSR and will not establish or alter any record keeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements elsewhere in the Amended TSR.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Trade practices.
Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission amends part 310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 6101-6108; 15 U.S.C. 6151-6155.
(c) The annual fee, which must be paid by any person prior to obtaining access to the National Do Not Call Registry, is $62 for each area code of data accessed, up to a maximum of $17,021;
(d) Each person who pays, either directly or through another person, the annual fee set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, each person excepted under paragraph (c) from paying the annual fee, and each person excepted from paying an annual fee under § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), will be provided a unique account number that will allow that person to access the registry data for the selected area codes at any time for the twelve month period beginning on the first day of the month in which the person paid the fee (“the annual period”). To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the first six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under paragraph (c) of this section must first pay $62 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the second six months of the annual period, each person required to pay the fee under paragraph (c) of this section must first pay $31 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. The payment of the additional fee will permit the person to access the additional area codes of data for the remainder of the annual period.
By direction of the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration; HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending the Medical Device Classification Procedures regulation to reflect a change in address for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). This action is editorial in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of the Agency's regulations.
This rule is effective August 21, 2017
Karen Fikes, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9603.
FDA is amending our regulations in 21 CFR part 860 that set forth procedures for mailing reclassification petitions (§ 860.123 (21 CFR 860.123)) to revise the mailing address for CDRH. The current mailing address in the regulation for CDRH is as follows: Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Regulations Staff, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4438, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. The room number, 4438, has been changed; the new room number is G609. The mailing address is revised as follows: Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Regulations Staff, Document Mail Center-WO66-G609, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Sections 513(e) and (f), 514(b), 515(b), and 520(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(e) and (f); 360d(b); 360e(b), and 360j(l)), provide for the reclassification of a device and prescribe procedures to petition for reclassification. FDA provides procedures for the content and form of reclassification petitions submitted pursuant to § 860.123(b)(1) for devices regulated by CDRH. The address for submitting a reclassification petition for devices regulated by CDRH in § 860.123(b)(1) is amended to reflect the new room number. The addresses remain the same for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Administrative practice and procedure, 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 860 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 360c, 360d, 360e, 360i, 360j, 371, 374.
(b) * * *
(1) For devices regulated by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, addressed to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Regulations Staff, Document Mail Center-WO66-G609, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; for devices regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressed to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G112, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; for devices regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, addressed to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Central Document Control Room, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266, as applicable.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of Humboldt Bay in King Salmon, CA in support of the Pacific Gas and Electric Evolution that will be effective on August 2, 2017 and on August 30, 2017. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of workers, mariners, and other vessels transiting the area from the dangers associated with this evolution. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from August 21, 2017 until August 30, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 2, 2017, until August 21, 2017.
This rule is being enforced from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 2, 2017 and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 30, 2017.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2017-0699. To view these documents go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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.” Due to the date of the event, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.
For similar reasons as those stated above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company will sponsor the Pacific Gas and Electric Evolution on August 2, 2017 and on August 30, 2017, in the navigable waters of Humboldt Bay in King Salmon, CA. The evolution is necessary to complete an inspection and for re-licensing purposes. The evolution is scheduled to take place on August 2, 2017 and on
For the reasons stated above, the Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for the duration of the event. Upon commencement of the evolution, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters of Humboldt Bay within a 300 meter radius of position: 40°44′31″ N., 124°12′39″ W. (NAD83). The safety zone is issued to establish a temporary restricted area on the waters surrounding the evolution. The Coast Guard or a designated representative will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters of Humboldt Bay within a 300 meter radius of position: 40°44′31″ N., 124°12′39″ W. (NAD83) during the evolution. The evolution is necessary to complete an inspection and for re-licensing purposes is scheduled to take place on August 2, 2017 and on August 30, 2017. At the conclusion of the evolution the safety zone shall terminate.
The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the evolution. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep mariners and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the evolution to ensure the safety of workers, mariners, and other vessels transiting the area.
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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs 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 (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because it is outside of the Fields Landing Channel and the public will be notified via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, (ii) vessel traffic can transit safely around the safety zone, and (iii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
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 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 (NEPA) (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 of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration is available in the docket for this rulemaking. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
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 recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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)
(d)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547 or on VHF channel 16.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise several miscellaneous rules, covering definitions, source tests, credible evidence, open burning, air pollution episodes, and fugitive particulate matter. EPA is approving portions of SIP revisions submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on the following dates: July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 10, 2014, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016. These actions are being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.
This direct final rule is effective October 20, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 20, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0387 at
D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at
On July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 10, 2014, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016, SC DHEC submitted SIP revisions to EPA for approval that involve changes to South Carolina's SIP regulations to add definitions, make administrative and clarifying amendments, and correct typographical errors. These SIP submittals make changes to several air quality rules in South Carolina Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. Regs.). The changes EPA is approving into the SIP in this action modify portions of Regulation 61-62.1 “Definitions and General Requirements” at Section I—“Definitions,” Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests,” Regulation 61-62.1, Section V—“Credible Evidence.” EPA is also approving changes to Regulation 61-62.2—“Prohibition of Open Burning,” Regulation 61-62.3—“Air Pollution Episodes” at Section I—“Episode Criteria” and Regulation 61-62.6—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter” at Section I—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter in Non-Attainment Areas” and Section III—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter Statewide.”
At this time, EPA is not acting on the changes detailed in Table 1 below. EPA will address all remaining changes to the South Carolina SIP as listed above in a separate action.
South Carolina is amending its list of applicable definitions related to the regulation of air quality at Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions.” The July 18, 2011, submittal makes several changes to the definitions as follows: (1) Adds a definition for “CAA [Clean Air Act];” (2) adds definitions for “PM
The April 10, 2014, submittal makes one revision to the definitions at Regulation 61-62.1, Section I.94.—“Volatile Organic Compound (VOC),” to add a compound to the list of compounds determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity and therefore exempted from being considered a VOC, consistent with the federal definition. This revision in the April 10, 2014, submittal is superseded by another revision to the definition of VOC at I.94. in the August 8, 2014, submittal. This submittal changes the format of the definition of VOC at I.99., renumbered from I.94., to incorporate by reference the list of compounds exempted from the federal definition by making an explicit reference to the federal definition at 40 CFR 51.100(s). The August 8, 2014, submittal goes on to revise Section I by: (1) Adding definitions for “Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),” “NAICS [North American Industrial Classification System] Code,” and “SIC [Standard Industrial Classification] Code;” and (2) making administrative changes throughout.
Finally, the July 27, 2016, submittal makes subsequent revisions to Section I to add the definition of “emission” and makes administrative edits throughout. EPA has reviewed the changes made to South Carolina's definitions and is approving the aforementioned changes to Regulation 61-62.1, Section I into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.
South Carolina is amending its rules covering source testing at Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests.” Federal implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.212—“Testing, inspection, enforcement, and complaints,” require, among other things, that the SIP must provide for “periodic testing and inspection of stationary sources.”
The June 17, 2013, submittal revises the rule to make an administrative edit only. The August 8, 2014, submittal further revises the rule as follows: (1) Adds an additional requirement for site-specific test plans to account for procedures for obtaining, analyzing, and reporting source test audit samples and results; (2) adds language to provide more prescriptive requirements for notifications of testing; (3) adds language to specify that where federal regulation requires specific certification for conducting source tests, the individuals conducting the tests will meet that requirement; (4) removes language stating SC DHEC would provide audit samples to sources for required audits; (5) adds language stating that sources must purchase samples from an audit sample provider where commercially available, and including procedures for the source audits, consistent with federal rulemakings on stationary source auditing;
EPA has reviewed the changes made to South Carolina's rules for source testing and is approving the aforementioned changes to Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.
South Carolina is making a minor change to its rules covering credible evidence at Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests.” Federal implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.212—“Testing, inspection, enforcement, and complaints,” require, among other things, that the SIP must not “preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test or procedure had been performed.” SC DHEC's SIP-approved provisions at Regulation 61-62.1, Standard V clarify State authority for enforcement and compliance certification and asserts that credible evidence is data that may be used to determine compliance or noncompliance with applicable emission limits.
The August 8, 2014, submittal revises the regulation to make an administrative edit for consistency in internal citations only. EPA has reviewed the changes made to South Carolina's rules for credible evidence and is approving the aforementioned change to Regulation 61-62.1, Section V into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.
South Carolina is making a minor change to its rules covering open burning at Regulation 61-62.2—“Prohibition of Open Burning.” South Carolina's SIP-approved regulation prohibits open burning except in limited circumstances. The April 10, 2014, submittal revises the regulation to make an administrative edit to a referenced manual only. EPA has reviewed the changes made to South Carolina's rules for open burning and is approving the aforementioned change to Regulation 61-62.2 into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.
South Carolina is making minor changes to its rules covering air pollution episodes at Regulation 61-62.3—“Air Pollution Episodes.” South Carolina's SIP-approved regulation defines classifications of high air pollution for public notification and outlines emission reduction plans corresponding to the different classifications. The July 18, 2011 and June 17, 2013, submittals revise the regulation at Section I—“Episode Criteria” to make administrative edits to formatting and correct a typographical error only. EPA has reviewed the changes made to South Carolina's rules for air pollution episodes and is approving the aforementioned change to Regulation 61-62.3 into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.
South Carolina is making minor changes to its rules covering fugitive particulate matter at Regulation 61-62.6—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter.” South Carolina's SIP-approved regulation describes procedures for properly controlling the release of fugitive particulate matter in nonattainment areas for particulate matter-related standards, in areas with ambient air quality concentrations at or near primary standards, and generally applicable to all areas in the state. The April 10, 2014 submittal makes changes to Section I—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter in Non-Attainment Areas” and Section III—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter Statewide” to make administrative edits only. The January 20, 2016 submittal makes a subsequent administrative edit to Section I—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter in Non-Attainment Areas” only. EPA has reviewed the changes made to South Carolina's rules for controlling fugitive particulate matter and is approving the aforementioned change to Regulation 61-62.6 into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the following South Carolina Regulations: Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions,” effective June 24, 2016, which revises definitions applicable to the SIP; Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests,” effective June 27, 2014, which revises requirements for stationary source testing; Regulation 61-62.1, Section V—“Credible Evidence,” effective June 27, 2014, which revises formatting for consistency; Regulation 61-62.2—“Prohibition of Open Burning,” effective December 27, 2013, which revises formatting for consistency; Regulation 61-62.3, Section I—“Episode Criteria,” effective April 26, 2013, which makes administrative edits to regulations prescribing air quality episodes; Regulation 61-62.6, Section I—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter in Non-Attainment Areas,” effective November 27, 2015, which revises formatting; and Regulation 61-62.6, Section III—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter Statewide,” effective December 27, 2013, which makes administrative language changes for consistency. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 10, 2014, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016 because they are consistent with the CAA and federal regulations. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 20, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this direct final action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 20, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensates, potassium salts (CAS Reg. No. 67828-14-2) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant and related adjuvant of surfactants) applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest by amending an existing exemption for similar substances. Monsanto Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting this amendment. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensates, potassium salts, when used consistent with the terms.
This regulation is effective August 21, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 20, 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-2016-0500, 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 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-2016-0500 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 October 20, 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-2016-0500, 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
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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 . . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensate potassium salt including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensate potassium salt follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of
In the
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensate potassium salt as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the
Based on the low potential hazard and the lack of a hazard endpoint for these compounds, EPA determined that a quantitative risk assessment is not appropriate.
In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).
No hazard was identified for the acute and chronic dietary assessment (food and drinking water), or for the short term, intermediate-term, and long-term residential assessments, and therefore, no quantitative aggregate exposure assessments were performed. The Agency qualitatively assessed exposure as follows. When used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest, there may be exposure from residues in or on food and from residues ending up in drinking water from use on growing crops. The SANFC inerts are used as disperants, defoamers and emulsifiers in pesticide formulations. These surfactants have a wide range of industrial uses as well as serving as emulsifiers in personal care products and in food contact packaging; therefore, EPA concludes that exposure from these sources is also likely.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensate potassium salt to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensate potassium salt does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensate potassium salt 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
Based on all available information, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of the potassium salt of naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensates, when used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
One comment was received for a notice of filing offering suggestions on how to move away from using synthetic chemicals as pesticides. This comment is not specifically directed at today's tolerance exemption action nor does it include any information for the Agency to consider in making its safety determination for this exemption.
Therefore, the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of mono-, di-, and trimethylnapthalenesulfonic acids and napthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensates, ammonium and sodium salts is amended to include potassium salts (specifically, naphthalenesulfonic acids formaldehyde condensate potassium salt (CAS Reg. No. 67828-14-2)) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant and related adjuvant of surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.
This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of 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 exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule,
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposal for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by adding an inspection to determine a part number and to incorporate an airworthiness limitation (AWL) into the maintenance or inspection program. This action also revises the NPRM by specifying a new version of the airline information management system (AIMS) software for airplanes equipped with AIMS-2 software. We are proposing this Airworthiness Directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by October 5, 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 SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562 797 1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
David Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6497; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, several operators commented on issues with the installation of AIMS-2 Blockpoint V17.1 software on certain airplane configurations and under certain operating conditions. Boeing recently released version 17A of this software to address these issues. We have determined that it is necessary to mandate the use of AIMS-2 Blockpoint version 17A to address the identified unsafe condition for the affected airplanes.
In addition, on November 17, 2016, we approved an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) Notice 777-28A0034 AMOC 02, via FAA letter 140S-16-180. This AMOC identified changes to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015, which corrects the description of Group 4 airplanes. This AMOC, when combined with the previously approved AMOCs for Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015, applies to the accomplishment of paragraphs (g), (h),
In the NPRM, we included costs for doing an inspection to identify the part number of the MOV actuators. However, we inadvertently left out the requirement for this inspection in the NPRM. We have added this requirement to paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International, expressed support for the NPRM.
Boeing, All Nippon Airways (ANA), and United Airlines (UAL) all requested that we include a paragraph stating that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) is terminating action to all requirements of AD 2015-19-01, Amendment 39-18264 (80 FR 55521, September 16, 2015) (“AD 2015-19-01”), which required operators to revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add airworthiness limitation 28-AWL-MOV. Boeing stated that AD 2015-19-01 also required repetitive inspections of MOVs for Boeing Model 777 airplanes with fuel spar actuators having certain part numbers. Boeing noted that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would require replacing those fuel spar actuators or upgrading the AIMS-2 software. Boeing concluded that by complying with the actions of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), operators are also complying with all requirements of AD 2015-19-01.
We agree with the commenters' request to specify a condition that would terminate the requirements of AD 2015-19-01. However, we find it necessary to add another step to this proposed AD before the requirements of AD 2015-19-01 can be terminated. We understand that operators typically manage a single maintenance or inspection program for their entire fleets, rather than for individual airplanes. If operators are allowed to remove the AWL mandated by AD 2015-19-01 before the actions in the proposed AD are completed on the entire fleet, the AWL and its associated repetitive inspections could be inadvertently removed from individual airplanes in the fleet before the unsafe condition is mitigated.
In addition, we consider that an additional action is necessary to prevent an airplane from being modified to a pre-AD condition. This proposed AD would prohibit the installation of MOV actuator P/N MA30A1001 (Boeing P/N S343T003-66) or MA20A2027 (Boeing P/N S343T003-56) at the fuel spar valve locations. However, these two part numbers can still be installed at other locations (as their failure is of economic impact only), and could be inadvertently re-installed at the fuel spar valve locations. To address this concern, we have added paragraph (h) to this AD to specify a requirement for the incorporation of a new AWL. Other than the prohibition, there is no maintenance action associated with the new AWL.
The incorporation of the new AWL would be required after the accomplishment of the actions specified by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD on all affected airplanes in an operator's fleet, but within 24 months after the effective date of this AD. If an operator accomplishes all required actions on all affected airplanes in the fleet before the end of the 24-month compliance time, the operator has an option to incorporate the new AWL at that time, or at a later time, but before the end of the 24-month compliance time. This option is intended to allow continued operation of an airplane if an airplane having the pre-AD configuration is introduced into an operator's fleet before the end of the compliance time, but after the accomplishment of the required actions on all other airplanes in the fleet.
We have added paragraphs (h) (specifying incorporation of the AWL) and (i) (stating that accomplishing the actions in this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2015-19-01) to this proposed AD and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. We have also revised paragraph (b) of this proposed AD to indicate that this proposed AD would affect AD 2015-19-01.
ANA requested that we allow the repetitive inspections specified in AD 2015-19-01 in lieu of the actions specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). ANA stated that both AD 2015-19-01 and the proposed AD (in the NPRM) can detect and correct latent failure of the fuel shutoff valve, and the purpose of both ADs is the same.
We disagree with the request because the actions in AD 2015-19-01 were intended to mitigate the unsafe condition while a permanent solution was being developed. A permanent design modification is preferable to ongoing inspections, since it eliminates the potential latency failure period between inspections. The actions required by this proposed AD are intended to eliminate the unsafe condition. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
American Airlines (AAL) and Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we revise the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to allow installation of Version 17.1 or a later approved version of the AIMS-2 software, or to remove the requirement to update the AIMS-2 software in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-31-0227, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2015. JAL noted that incorporation of this service information could cause the navigation and multifunction displays to momentarily go blank during takeoff and landing. AAL added that incorporation of this service information on airplanes equipped with VHF radios only capable of Mode 0 will make the VHF datalink inoperable. AAL noted that the proposed solution from Boeing is to replace the VHF radio, creating an additional financial burden. AAL stated that Boeing was planning on addressing this issue through a service bulletin related to AIMS-2 Blockpoint Version 17A. AAL also asked for clarification regarding what constitutes a later approved software version.
We agree with the commenters' request. The installation of AIMS-2 Blockpoint Version 17.1 on certain airplane configurations, and under certain operating conditions, could allow the issues noted by AAL and JAL. Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing released Service Bulletin 777-31-0218, dated September 8, 2016, which incorporates AIMS-2 Blockpoint Version 17A to address these issues. We have included this new service information in this SNPRM and revised paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this proposed AD to refer to the new software version and service information. We have also revised paragraph (i) of this proposed AD to include credit for the installation of AIMS-2 Blockpoint Version 17 or 17.1, since this software is one way to prevent the latent failure of the MOV actuator and works under most airplane configurations and operating conditions.
UAL requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to provide credit for actions accomplished in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015. UAL provided no justification for its request.
We disagree because we find the requested change unnecessary. Paragraph (f) of this proposed AD states that the actions must be completed within the compliance times specified, “unless already done.” Therefore, if the actions in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)(i) of this proposed AD are already completed in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015, no credit is needed for these actions. The purpose of paragraph (j) of this proposed AD (paragraph (h) in the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) is to provide credit for actions completed on or before the effective date of the AD using earlier versions of service information. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
ANA requested that we allow the actions of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to be an approved AMOC to AD 2013-05-03. ANA stated that AD 2013-05-03 requires operators to replace an MOV actuator with a new or serviceable actuator having part number (P/N) MA30A1001 or with an MOV actuator meeting certain criteria. ANA noted that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would require replacing MOV actuators with P/N MA30A1017, a different requirement than in AD 2013-05-03.
We disagree with the commenter's request. We have already approved the use of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015, as an AMOC to the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-05-03 to replace an affected MOV actuator, as stated therein. Therefore, it is not necessary to restate this AMOC in this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
ANA and JAL both requested that we extend the compliance time of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). JAL requested that the compliance time be extended from 24 months to 60 months because AD 2016-04-20, Amendment 39-18414 (81 FR 10460, March 1, 2016) (“AD 2016-04-20”) and AD 2016-21-05, Amendment 39-18686 (81 FR 79384, November 14, 2016) (“AD 2016-21-05”) also require the installation of MOV actuator P/N MA30A1017 (at different locations on the airplane and/or different airplane models), but allow 60 months for the installation. ANA requested that the compliance time be extended to 8 years, because Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28-1314 specifies installation of the same MOV actuator P/N MA30A1017 (on different airplane models) with a compliance time of 8 years. ANA stated that because the same part is used on Boeing Model 737, 767, and 777 airplanes, the vendor will not be able to supply enough MOV actuators to complete the proposed actions within 24 months on Model 777 airplanes.
We disagree with the requests. The compliance time of 24 months was coordinated with Boeing as a practical compliance time for Model 777 airplanes. We may consider providing AMOC approval if the Boeing vendor of the MOV actuators is unable to provide an adequate supply for operators to comply with these actions in the applicable compliance times.
Further, AD 2013-05-03 requires the removal of MOV actuator P/N MA20A1001-1 (S343T003-39) on both AIMS-1 and AIMS-2 airplanes, with the exception that the MOV actuator does not have to be removed from the fuel spar valve locations on airplanes on which AIMS-1 is installed. Although AD 2016-04-20 and AD 2016-21-05 provide instructions to replace the fuel spar valve, they do not require that the MOV actuator only be replaced with P/N MA30A1017. MOV actuators with P/N MA20A2027 (S343T003-56) and MA30A1001 (S343T003-66) have been determined to be prone to latent failure, so unless the airplane is equipped with AIMS-2 Blockpoint Version 17 or later (which mitigates the unsafe condition), we are mandating that only P/N MA30A1017 (S343T003-76) be installed at the left and right fuel spar valve locations. We have not changed this proposed AD regarding this issue.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015. This service information describes procedures for, among other things, inspection and replacement of the main and center fuel tank valve actuators.
We also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-31-0218, dated September 8, 2016. This service information describes procedures for installing the AIMS-2, Blockpoint Version 17A software upgrade.
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 SNPRM 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. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This SNPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this SNPRM and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We have excluded line numbers 1165 and subsequent from the applicability section of this proposed AD as these airplanes were manufactured with AIMS-2 Blockpoint Version 17 or higher installed, and are not affected by the unsafe condition.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 154 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with 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.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
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 October 5, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2015-19-01, Amendment 39-18264 (80 FR 55521, September 16, 2015).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300, 777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, excluding line numbers 1165 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of latently failed fuel shutoff valves discovered during fuel filter replacement. We are issuing this AD to prevent latent failure of the fuel shutoff valve to the engine, which could result in the inability to terminate fuel flow to the engine and, in the case of an engine fire, could lead to wing failure.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection to determine the part numbers (P/N) of the motor-operated valve (MOV) actuators of the fuel shutoff valves for the left and right engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number can be conclusively determined from that review. If any MOV actuator not having P/N MA30A1017 (Boeing P/N S343T003-76), is found, do the actions in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes having airplane information management system (AIMS) 1 installed: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, install new engine fuel spar MOV actuators having part number (P/N) MA30A1017, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015.
(2) For airplanes having AIMS-2, Blockpoint Version 16 or earlier, installed: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Install new engine fuel spar MOV actuators having P/N MA30A1017, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015.
(ii) Install AIMS-2, Blockpoint Version 17A or later-approved version, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-31-0218, dated September 8, 2016. Later-approved versions of the software are only those Boeing software versions that are approved as a replacement for AIMS-2, Blockpoint Version 17A, and approved as part of the type design by the FAA after issuance of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-31-0218, dated September 8, 2016.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, and after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD on all airplanes in an operator's fleet, as applicable, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to add Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) 28-AWL-MOVA by incorporating the information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD into the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2015-19-01.
This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, if AIMS-2 Blockpoint Version 17 or 17.1 was installed before the effective date of this AD either in production or using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-31-0227, dated November 7, 2014; or Revision 1, dated August 12, 2015.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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 certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(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. 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 David Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6497; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(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 90740-5600; telephone 562 797 1717; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Rosebud, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures developed at Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016- 9545; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-33, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport, Rosebud, SD, to support special instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016- 9545/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-33.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport, Rosebud, SD, to accommodate new special instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Rosebud Sioux Tribal Airport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise several miscellaneous rules, covering definitions, source tests, credible evidence, open burning, air pollution episodes, and fugitive particulate matter. EPA is proposing to approve portions of SIP revisions submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control on the following dates: July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, April 10, 2014, August 8, 2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 2016. These actions are being proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before September 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0387 at
D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at
In the Final Rules Section of this
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Request for comment.
In a March 22, 2017,
Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017. EPA will announce the public hearing date and location for this document in a supplemental
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Christopher Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4584; email address:
Materials related to the Mid-term Evaluation are available in the public docket noted above and at
Direct your submittals to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827. EPA's policy is that all submittals received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
Do not submit information to the docket that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
EPA will also hold a public hearing on this notice. We will announce the public hearing date and location in a supplemental
Do not submit this information to EPA through
When submitting comments, remember to:
• Identify the action by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the
In a March 22, 2017,
Some stakeholders previously commented that they were preparing studies to inform the Mid-term Evaluation that were not ready for submission during the previous Mid-term Evaluation comment periods. This additional comment period provides an opportunity for commenters to submit to EPA additional studies and other materials as well as to complete the preparation of their comments, or submit additional comments in light of newly available information. There is an existing body of EPA analyses and public comments already in the docket. Please note that the agency is primarily interested in comments relevant to the reconsideration of the Final Determination, rather than the Technical Assessment Report (TAR), which is not being reopened for comment in this document. Additionally, NHTSA has been working closely with stakeholders to develop its forthcoming rulemaking since the March 2017 joint document with EPA, and encourages commenters wishing to inform those efforts to directly participate in NHTSA's rulemaking process.
EPA's reconsideration will be conducted in accordance with the regulations EPA established for the Mid-term Evaluation at 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h). These regulations state that in making the required determination as to whether the existing standards are appropriate under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator shall consider the information available on the factors relevant to setting greenhouse gas emission standards under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act for model years 2022 through 2025, including but not limited to:
• The availability and effectiveness of technology, and the appropriate lead time for introduction of technology;
• The cost on the producers or purchasers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines;
• The feasibility and practicability of the standards;
• The impact of the standards on reduction of emissions, oil conservation, energy security, and fuel savings by consumers;
• The impact of the standards on the automobile industry;
• The impacts of the standards on automobile safety;
• The impact of the greenhouse gas emission standards on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and a national harmonized program; and
• The impact of the standards on other relevant factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h)(1)(viii), EPA also invites comments on the following other factors relevant to setting greenhouse gas emission standards under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act for model years 2022 through 2025:
• The impact of the standards on compliance with other air quality standards;
• The extent to which consumers value fuel savings from greater efficiency of vehicles;
• The ability for OEMs to incorporate fuel saving technologies, including those with “negative costs,” absent the standards;
• The distributional consequences on households;
• The appropriate reference fleet;
• The impact of the standards on advanced fuels technology, including but not limited to the potential for high-octane blends;
• The availability of realistic technological concepts for improving efficiency in automobiles that consumers demand, as well as any indirect impacts on emissions;
• The advantages or deficiencies in EPA's past approaches to forecasting and projecting automobile technologies, including but not limited to baseline projections for compliance costs, technology penetration rates, technology performance, etc.;
• The impact of the standards on consumer behavior, including but not limited to consumer purchasing behavior and consumer automobile usage behavior (
• Any relevant information in light of newly available information.
In addition, EPA seeks comment on the use of alternative methodologies and modeling systems to assess both analytical inputs and the standards, including but not limited to the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Argonne National Laboratory's Autonomie full vehicle simulation tool and DOT's CAFE Compliance and Effects Model.
In accord with the schedule set forth in its regulations, the EPA intends to make a Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the model year 2022-2025 greenhouse gas standards, and potentially the model year 2021 greenhouse gas standard, no later than April 1, 2018.
In this document, in the interest of harmonization between the GHG and CAFE programs, EPA is also requesting comment on the separate question of whether the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards established for model year 2021 are appropriate. In its July 26, 2017, “Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Year 2022-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,” NHTSA stated that as part of its upcoming CAFE rulemaking, it may evaluate the model year 2021 standards it finalized in 2012 to ensure they remain “maximum feasible” (See 82 FR 34742). Please provide comment on the continued appropriateness of the model year 2021 GHG standards based on the application of the factors described above or any other factors that commenters believe are appropriate.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; further delay of effective date.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0906-AB11, by any of the following methods. Please submit your comments in only one of these ways to minimize the receipt of duplicate submissions.
•
•
•
All submitted comments will be available to the public in their entirety. Please do not submit confidential commercial information or personal identifying information that you do not want in the public domain.
CAPT Krista Pedley, Director, OPA, HSB, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone at 301-594-4353.
On September 30, 2010, HHS published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
On January 5, 2017, HHS published a final rule in the
After further consideration and to provide affected parties sufficient time to make needed changes to facilitate compliance, and because questions were raised, HHS issued an interim final rule (82 FR 14332, March 20, 2017), to delay the effective date of the final rule to May 22, 2017, and solicited additional comments on whether that date should be further extended to October 1, 2017. HHS received several comments to the interim final rule, some supporting and some opposing the delay of the effective date to May 22, 2017, or alternatively to October 1, 2017. After careful consideration of the comments received, HHS delayed the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule to October 1, 2017 (82 FR 22893, May 19, 2017).
HHS proposes to further delay the effective date of the January 5, 2017 final rule because it continues to examine important substantive issues in matters covered by the rule. HHS intends to engage in additional rulemaking on these issues. HHS believes that the proposed delay will allow for necessary time to more fully consider the substantial questions of fact, law and policy raised by the rule, consistent with the aforementioned “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” memorandum. Requiring manufacturers to make targeted and potentially costly changes to pricing systems and business procedures in order to comply with a rule that is under further consideration and for which substantive questions have been raised would be disruptive. We also believe additional time is needed to more fully consider previous objections regarding the timing of the effective date and challenges associated with complying with the rule, as well as other objections to the rule.
In addition, the January 20, 2017, Executive Order entitled, “Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal,” specifically instructs HHS and all other heads of executive offices to utilize all authority and discretion available to delay the implementation of certain provisions or requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
At this time, HHS seeks public comments regarding the impact of delaying the effective date of the final rule, published January 5, 2017, for an additional nine months from the current
HHS has examined the effects of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 8, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866, emphasizing the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year), and a “significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
HHS does not believe that the proposal to delay the effective date of the January 5, 2017, final rule will have an economic impact of $100 million or more, and is therefore not designated as an “economically significant” proposed rule under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order 12866. Therefore, the economic impact of having no rule in place related to the policies addressed in the final rule is believed to be minimal, as the policies would not yet be required or enforceable.
Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. This proposed rule is not expected to be an EO 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under EO 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of the RFA, HHS considers all health care providers to be small entities either by meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for a small business, or by being a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its market. The current SBA size standard for health care providers ranges from annual receipts of $7 million to $35.5 million. As of January 1, 2017, over 12,000 covered entities participate in the 340B Program, which represent safety-net health care providers across the country. HHS has determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small manufacturers; therefore, we are not preparing an analysis of impact for this RFA. HHS estimates that the economic impact on small entities and small manufacturers will be minimal. HHS welcomes comments concerning the impact of this proposed rule on small manufacturers and small health care providers.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” In 2013, that threshold level was approximately $141 million. HHS does not expect this rule to exceed the threshold.
HHS has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” This proposed rule would not “have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. This proposed rule is projected to have no impact on current reporting and recordkeeping burden for manufacturers under the 340B Program. This proposed rule would result in no new reporting burdens. Comments are welcome on the accuracy of this statement.
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Notice of information collection renewal.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), 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 continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested concerning (a) Whether the continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Sylvia Joyner, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-2701; tel. 202-712-5007 or via email
Send comments via email to
The purpose of this collection is to enable the U.S. Agency for International Development to locate applicable records and to respond to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. Information includes sufficient personally identifiable information and/or source documents as applicable. Failure to provide the required information may result in no action being taken on the request. Authority to collect this information is contained in 5 U.S.C. 552, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 22 CFR 212-Subpart M.
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 regarding (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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 September 20, 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 20503. Commentors 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 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 September 20, 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 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.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 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 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 October 20, 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 email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patricia Abaroa, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE-49), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Washington, DC 20233; phone: (301) 278-9591; or via email at
The Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—Transactions of U.S. Affiliate with Foreign Parent (Form BE-605) obtains quarterly data on transactions and positions between foreign-owned U.S. business enterprises and their “affiliated foreign groups” (
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) does not propose any changes to the survey.
Notice of specific reporting requirements, including who is to report, the information to be reported, the manner of reporting, and the time and place of filing reports, will be mailed to potential respondents each quarter. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter, or 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the respondent's financial reporting year. Reports are required from every U.S. business enterprise in which a foreign entity owns, directly and/or indirectly, 10 percent or more of the voting securities of the U.S. business enterprise if it is incorporated, or an equivalent interest if it is unincorporated, at any time during the quarter, and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-605. Certain private funds are exempt from reporting. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.
Potential respondents include those U.S. business enterprises that were required to report on the BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—2012, along with those U.S. business enterprises that subsequently have become at least partly foreign owned.
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.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) has considered the application (docketed June 21, 2017) submitted by the Grand Forks Regional Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 103, requesting reissuance of the grant of authority for said zone to the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation, which has accepted such reissuance subject to approval by the FTZ Board. Upon review, the Board finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest.
Therefore, the Board approves the application and recognizes the Grand Forks Region Economic Development Corporation as the new grantee for Foreign-Trade Zone 103, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The amended application to reorganize FTZ 12 under the ASF is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the zone, and to an ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate authority for Site 1 if not activated within five years from the month of approval.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce; Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President.
Request for comments.
Section 3(e) of the Presidential Executive Order on Buy American and Hire American directs the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to assess the impacts of all United States free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) on the operation of Buy American Laws, including their impacts on the implementation of domestic procurement preferences. The Executive Order can be found here:
In response to this Executive Order, the Department of Commerce (Department) and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) are conducting industry outreach in order to better understand how the U.S. government procurement obligations under all U.S. free trade agreements and the GPA affect U.S. manufacturers' and suppliers' access to and participation in the domestic government procurement process. In addition, because reciprocal access to trading partners' markets is an important motivation for including government procurement obligations in U.S. free trade agreements and for the United States' membership in the GPA, the Department and the USTR are also seeking information about the costs and benefits of these obligations to U.S. manufacturers and suppliers competing in U.S. trading partners' government procurement markets. The trading partners with which the United States has international government procurement obligations are: Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, the European Union (which includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland, and Ukraine.
The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative are required to conclude the assessment called for under Section 3(e) by September 15, 2017. Responses to this notice will be considered in the assessment as well as in the final report of findings and recommendations to strengthen the implementation of Buy American Laws that the Secretary of Commerce will submit to the President of the United States by November 24, 2017.
September 18, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT): Deadline for interested persons to submit written comments.
You may submit responses to the questions below by one of the following methods:
(a)
(b)
Send all written/paper submissions to: Adam Boltik, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 3043, Washington, DC 20230;
For questions about this notice contact: Adam Boltik or Kate Mellor at the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, at (202) 482-0357 or (202) 482-5456. Please direct media inquiries to the Department of Commerce Office of Public Affairs at (202) 482-4883, or
In responding to the questions below, commenters should consider the impact for participating in U.S. federal and/or foreign government procurement markets with respect to:
• Business opportunities that are made available;
• Economic incentives that trade agreements and Buy American Laws provide;
• How trade agreements impact business competitiveness, or increase or decrease competition, in government procurement opportunities;
• How trade agreements affect companies' (prime contractors') supply chain and sourcing decisions for goods;
• How Buy American or similar foreign requirements increase or decrease companies' (prime contractors') competitiveness in government procurement opportunities;
• Administrative compliance costs tied to Buy American and similar government procurement policies; and
• Additional costs relating to providing or otherwise proving the country of origin of goods provided.
Respondents may organize their submissions in any manner, and all responses that comply with the requirements listed in the
1. What is your company's experience with respect to U.S. federal and/or foreign government procurement, either as prime contractor or a subcontractor? While any experience is welcome, please identify experiences within the past 5 years.
a. Have you bid on U.S. federal contracts? How many?
b. Were you awarded any U.S. federal contracts? How many?
c. What share of annual revenue from your U.S. operations was from U.S. federal contracts?
d. Have you bid on foreign government contracts? How many? List the countries of five largest bids.
e. Were you awarded any foreign government contracts? How many? List the countries of five largest awards.
f. What share of annual revenue from your U.S. operations was from foreign government contracts?
g. List the industries in which your company was awarded U.S. federal or foreign government contracts. Indicate NAICS code(s) if possible.
2. Please describe in a few sentences how your company's decisions to bid on or supply U.S. federal contracts (as a prime or subcontractor or company that produces goods used in procurements) are affected by U.S. free trade agreements and the WTO GPA which allow equal participation by companies from U.S. trading partners.
3. Please describe in few sentences your company's experience as a prime or subcontractor in bidding on national government procurements in countries with which the U.S. has a trade agreement with government procurement obligations. What are your three greatest challenges? (These countries are: Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, the European Union (which includes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland, and Ukraine.) How does this differ from your experience competing for bids in markets in countries with which the U.S. does not have a trade agreement with government procurement obligations?
4. What is the average U.S. content of goods that your company supplies to the U.S. federal government?
5. What is the average U.S. content of goods that your company supplies to foreign governments?
6. What are the three principal barriers to having 100% domestic content in the goods that you produce for U.S. federal or foreign governments?
7. Please describe in a few sentences how trade agreements with government procurement obligations affect strategic decisions your company makes about production and supply chains for government procurements as well as for commercial (private sector) customers.
8. Please describe in a few sentences any experience your company has had with conflict between Buy American or similar foreign requirements and U.S. free trade agreement or WTO GPA requirements, including whether and how the conflict was resolved.
9. Please describe in a few sentences whether the presence of Buy American or similar foreign requirements affected positively or negatively your company's ability to bid and/or win contracts for U.S. or foreign government procurement.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable August 21, 2017.
Yang Jin Chun (People's Republic of China) or Dmitry Vladimirov (Socialist Republic of Vietnam), AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760 and (202) 482-0665, respectively.
On May 1, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the antidumping duty investigations on certain tool chests and cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
The period of investigation is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.
Section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the time limit for the preliminary determination if it receives a timely request from the petitioner for postponement. The Department may postpone the preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1) of the Act to no later than 190 days after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation.
On August 9, 2017, the petitioner, Waterloo Industries Inc., made a timely request under 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determinations of these investigations.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The Department of Commerce is currently in the process of renewing the charter of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board or TTAB) for an addition two-year term. In anticipation of and conditioned upon the renewed charter taking effect on or before September 6, 2017, the Department is announcing the intent to hold a meeting of the Board on Wednesday, September 6, 2017. The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. travel and tourism industry. The purpose of the meeting is for Board members to discuss their recent recommendations adopted at the June 28, 2017 meeting with the Secretary of Commerce and receive direction for next steps. The recommendations address how to confer a competitive advantage to U.S. tourism interests in the areas of international travel and tourism; global competitiveness; and public-private partnerships that foster a welcoming destination. The full recommendations are available on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Board at
Wednesday, September 6, 2017, 2:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EDT. The deadline for members of the public to register,
The meeting will be held in Washington, DC. The exact location will be provided by email to registrants.
Requests to register (including to speak or for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to: National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 10003, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to
Brian Beall, the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 10003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-5634; email:
In addition, any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Board's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Brian Beall at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the meeting, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 30, 2017, to ensure transmission to the Board prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date and time will be distributed to the members but may not be considered during the meeting. Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable August 21, 2017.
Victoria Cho at (202) 482-5075 (Italy); Lingjun Wang at (202) 482-2316 (the Republic of Korea (Korea)); Alice Maldonado at (202) 482-4682 (the United Kindgom (UK)); Davina Friedmann at (202) 482-0698 (Spain); Moses Song at (202) 482-5041 (the Republic of South Africa (South Africa)); Ryan Mullen at (202) 482-5260 (the Republic of Turkey (Turkey)); and Julia Hancock at (202) 482-1394 (Ukraine), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On April 17, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (wire rod) from Italy, Korea, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, and the UK.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. The Department will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On August 11, 2017, the petitioners
For the reasons stated above, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 29, 2017, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment, sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) remand results pertaining to the ninth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) covering the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the ninth administrative review,
Applicable July 9, 2017.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-6905.
On September 15, 2015, the Department published its
In the
at Attachments 1-4.
In its decision in
This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the
Further, for the purpose of recalculating the sample rate for the non-individually examined companies that received a separate rate and are parties to this litigation,
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the importer-specific assessment rates recalculated in the Remand Redetermination for Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company and Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation and the above-noted 1.05 percent recalculated sample rate for the non-individually examined respondents that received a separate rate in the
Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company
There have been subsequent administrative reviews completed for the below-listed non-individually examined companies that qualified for a separate rate and are subject to this litigation; thus, the cash deposit rate for these exporters will remain the rate established in the most recently-completed administrative review in which they received a cash deposit rate.
There have been no subsequent administrative reviews completed for the below-listed non-individually examined companies that qualified for a separate rate and are subject to this litigation; thus, the cash deposit rate of 1.05 percent, as recalculated in the Remand Redetermination, applies for these exporters.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to review the Research Track stock assessment development procedure proposed by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). See
The SSC meeting will be held via webinar on Tuesday, September 5, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Mike Errigo at the Council office (see
Mike Errigo; 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
This meeting is held to review the Research Track stock assessment development procedure proposed by NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Fisheries Science Center. The SSC decided at their April 25-27, 2017 meeting in Charleston, SC, that the procedure for the Research Track was unclear and that they needed a document clearly laying out the process and approach of the Research Track before they could provide detailed comments.
Items to be addressed during this meeting:
1. Review the proposed Research Track procedure and provide comments and recommendations as necessary.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the U.S. Navy (Navy) for the take of marine mammals incidental to waterfront construction activities at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia.
Effective from July 12, 2017, through July 11, 2022.
The LOA and supporting documentation are available online at:
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On June 7, 2017, we issued a final rule upon request from the Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to waterfront construction activities (82 FR 26360). The Navy plans to repair in-water structures at NSB Kings Bay, as well as to construct new facilities and modify existing facilities. These repairs, upgrades, and new construction would include use of impact and vibratory pile driving, including installation and removal of steel, concrete, composite, and timber piles. The use of both vibratory and impact pile driving is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Only the bottlenose dolphin (
We have issued a LOA to Navy authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to waterfront construction activities, as described above. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through the implementation of the following planned mitigation measures: (1) Required monitoring of the waterfront construction areas to detect the presence of marine mammals before beginning construction activities; (2) shutdown of construction activities under certain circumstances to avoid injury of marine mammals; and (3) soft start for impact pile driving to allow marine mammals the opportunity to leave the area prior to beginning impact pile driving at full power. Additionally, the rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate. The Navy will submit reports as required.
Based on these findings and the information discussed in the preamble to the final rule, the activities described under this LOA will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council). The meeting is open to the public, and participants may provide comments at the appropriate time during the meeting.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 30, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, and an opportunity for public comment will be provided around 3:45 p.m. ET. Both these times and agenda topics are subject to change.
The meeting will be held at the Hall of the States located at 444 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Kate Spidalieri, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Phone: 240-533-0679; Fax: 301-713-0404; Email:
ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. National marine sanctuaries protect our nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies. One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. The Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council) has been formed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director regarding the relationship of ONMS with the business community. Additional information on the council can be found at
16 U.S.C. Sections 1431,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting and webinar/conference call.
NMFS will hold a 2-day Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) meeting in September 2017. The intent of the meeting is to consider options for the conservation and management of Atlantic HMS. The meeting is open to the public.
The AP meeting and webinar will be held from 9 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday, September 6, and from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, September 7.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Silver Spring Hotel, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The meeting presentations will also be available via WebEx webinar/conference call.
The meeting on Wednesday, September 6, and Thursday, September 7, 2017, will also be accessible via conference call and webinar. Conference call and webinar access information are available at:
Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show the presentations via webinar and allow public comment during identified times on the agenda.
Peter Cooper or Margo Schulze-Haugen at (301) 427-8503.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The AP has previously consulted with NMFS on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP (April 1999); the HMS FMP (April 1999); Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP (December 2003); the Consolidated HMS FMP (October 2006); and Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (April and October 2008, February and September 2009, May and September 2010, April and September 2011, March and September 2012, January and September 2013, April and September 2014, March and September 2015, and March, September, and December 2016, and May 2017), among other things.
The intent of this meeting is to consider alternatives for the conservation and management of all Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and shark fisheries. We anticipate discussing:
• Final Amendment 10 on Essential Fish Habitat;
• Implementation of Final Amendment 7 on bluefin tuna management, including the upcoming three-year review;
• Commercial swordfish pelagic longline fishery issues;
• Recreational fishery issues, such as the use of circle hooks in tournaments, and Charter/Headboat permitted vessels
• Progress updates regarding the exempted fishing permit requests; and
• Updates on electronic dealer reporting (eDealer) and quota monitoring.
We also anticipate inviting other NMFS offices to provide updates, if available, on their activities relevant to HMS fisheries with a focus on national policies/guidance that may require an FMP amendment or implementation strategy, such as Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology and Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Policy.
Additional information on the meeting and a copy of the draft agenda will be posted prior to the meeting at:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Peter Cooper at (301) 427-8503 at least 7 days prior to the meeting.
Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public comment period for the Jobos Bay National
Notice is hereby given that the Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision. Pursuant to 15 CFR 921.33(c), the revised plan will bring the reserve into compliance. The Jobos Bay Reserve revised plan will replace the plan approved in 2000.
The revised management plan outlines the administrative structure; the research/monitoring, stewardship, education, and training programs and priorities of the reserve; plans for a proposed boundary expansion through future land acquisition; and facility development priorities to support reserve operations.
The Jobos Bay Reserve takes an integrated approach to management, linking research and education, coastal training, and stewardship functions. The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER) has outlined how it will administer the reserve and its core programs by providing detailed actions that will enable it to accomplish specific goals and objectives. Since the last management plan, the reserve has: developed core programs; expanded monitoring programs within Jobos Bay and its watershed; expanded its dorm, and remodeled the historic train depot and visitor center; conducted training workshops; implemented K-12 education programs; and built new and innovative partnerships with local, Commonwealth, and U.S. organizations and universities.
The total number of acres within the boundary is 2800 acres, which is a slight modification of the original 2883 acres identified in the previous management plan. The revised acreage is a result of survey contracted by the PRDNER to clarify the boundary. The revised management plan will serve as the guiding document for the Jobos Bay Reserve for the next five years. View the Jobos Bay Reserve Management Plan revision at (
Nina Garfield at (240) 533-0817 or Erica Seiden at (240) 533-0781 of NOAA's Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad Hoc Trawl Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Technical Advisory Committee (GEMTAC) and Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Policy Advisory Committee (GEMPAC) (GEM Committees) will hold a joint work session via webinar, which is open to the public.
The webinar meeting will be held September 6, 2017, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) or when business for each day has been completed.
To attend the webinar, visit:
You may send an email to
Mr. Brett Wiedoff, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; phone: (503) 820-2280.
The GEM Committees will discuss items on the Pacific Council's September 2017 meeting agenda with the discussions focused on, but not limited to, Electronic Monitoring (EM)—Preliminary Pacific Halibut Discard Mortality Rates and Third-Party Review. The GEM Committees may also address one or more of the Council's scheduled Administrative Matters. The Committees will discuss analytical results of halibut discard mortality rates as observed under the Pacific Council's electronic monitoring program for the limited entry groundfish non-whiting midwater trawl and bottom trawl fisheries when fishing under the non-trawl shorebased individual fishing quota program. In addition, the Committees will discuss policy implications of the Council's preferred alternative for the industry to use solely the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission as the EM review provider when the program is implemented in regulation.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GEMPAC's and GEMTAC's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled NCCC Team Leader Application for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Charles Davenport, at 202-606-7516 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by September 20, 2017.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, August 30, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
NNMCAB Office, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Pojoaque, NM 87506.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 6, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Thursday, September 7, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
Best Western Hood River Inn, 1008 E Marina Drive, Hood River, OR 97031.
Kristen Holmes, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, H5-20, Richland, WA, 99352; Phone: (509) 376-5803; or Email:
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, September 26, 2017; 12:00 Noon to 3:00 p.m.
Teleconference. Instructions for access can be found on the HEPAP Web site:
John Kogut, Executive Secretary; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP); U.S. Department of Energy; SC-25/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-1298.
September 26, 2017:
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, September 7, 2017, 6:00 p.m.
Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737,
1. By letter filed June 6, 2017, Eric and Debbie Wattenburg informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Gansner Power and Water Project No. 7919, originally issued July 3, 1984
2. William Shelton is now the exemptee of the Gansner Power and Water Project No. 7919. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. William Shelton, Owner, P.O. Box 541, Durham, CA 95938, Phone 530-898-1937, Email:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of revised information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on revisions to the information collection, FERC-725E (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council), in Docket Nos. RD16-10-000, RD17-5-000 and IC17-6-000 and submitting the information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any interested person may file
Comments on the collection of information are due September 20, 2017.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-0246, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket Nos. RD17-5, RD16-10 and IC17-6, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
WECC promotes bulk electric system reliability in the Western Interconnection. WECC is the Regional Entity responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement. In addition, WECC provides an environment for the development of Reliability Standards and the coordination of the operating and planning activities of its members as set forth in the WECC Bylaws.
There are several regional Reliability Standards in the WECC region. These regional Reliability Standards generally require entities to document compliance with substantive requirements, retain documentation, and submit reports to WECC. The following standards will be continuing without change.
• BAL-002-WECC-2a (Contingency Reserve)
• BAL-004-WECC-02 (Automatic Time Error Correction) requires balancing authorities to document that time error corrections and primary inadvertent interchange payback were conducted according to the requirements in the standard.
• FAC-501-WECC-1 (Transmission Maintenance) requires transmission owners with certain transmission paths to have a transmission maintenance and inspection plan and to document maintenance and inspection activities according to the plan.
• IRO-006-WECC-2 (Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow (USF)
• PRC-004-WECC-2 (Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation)
• VAR-002-WECC-2 (Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVR))
The Commission will be submitting a request to OMB to extend those requirements with no change for three years. The Commission's request to OMB will also reflect the following:
• eliminating the burden associated with regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a, which is being retired (addressed in Docket No. RD16-10);
• implementing the regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 and retiring regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-2 (addressed in Docket No. RD17-5 and discussed below).
In this document, we provide estimates of the burden and cost related to those revisions to FERC-725E. Details follow on the changes due to Docket Nos. RD16-10, RD17-5-000, and IC17-6 and on the continuing burdens which are being submitted to OMB for approval in a consolidated package under FERC-725E.
1. By letter filed June 27, 2017, three different exemptees informed the Commission that their projects were transferred to Green Mountain Power Corporation. They are: (1) Lower Valley, LLC exemptee for the Lower Valley Project No. 6756, originally issued
2. Green Mountain Power Corporation is now the exemptee of the Lower Valley Project No. 6756; the Hoague-Sprague Project No. 4337; and the Woodsville Reactivation Project No. 5307. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Green Mountain Power Corporation, 163 Acorn Lane, Colchester, VT 05446.
1. By letter filed June 23, 2017, Stephen J. Bores informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Biber-Spellenberg Hydro Project No. 6550, originally issued February 14, 1983
2. JBS Rentals, LLC is now the exemptee of the Biber-Spellenberg Project No. 6550. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Jeremy Brown, Owner, P.O. Box 1233, Willow Creek, CA 95573, Phone 530-629-3100.
Take notice that on August 2, 2017, DCP Operating Company, LP (DCP), 370 17th Street, Suite 2500, Denver, Colorado 80202, filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct and operate approximately 8.4 miles of 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline with a maximum capacity of 253million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) in Weld County, Colorado (Mewbourn 3 Residue East Pipeline), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Tyler Culbertson, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, DCP Operating Company, LP, 370 17th Street, Suite 2500, Denver, Colorado 80202, at (303) 605-2278.
Further, DCP asks for clarification about the applicability of the Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate program to Mewbourn 3 Residue East Pipeline. DPC also seeks waivers of certain regulatory requirements, including the Commission's interstate natural gas pipeline open access, tariff, posting, accounting, and reporting requirements, like similar residue pipeline owner/operators. DCP wants confirmation that the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over the Mewbourn 3 Residue East Pipeline in no way jeopardizes the non-jurisdictional status of DCP's otherwise non-jurisdictional gathering and processing facilities.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2260.05, OMB Control No. 2090-0029) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2018. An 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 must be submitted on or before October 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2010-0757, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Megan Moreau, Office of Resources, Operations and Management, Federal Advisory Committee Management Division, Mail Code 1601M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-5320; fax number: 202-564-8129; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
Agency officials developed the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” also referred to as Form 3110-48, for greater inclusion of information to discover any potential conflicts of interest as recommended by the Government Accountability Office.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a November 21, 2016
The cancellations are applicable August 21, 2017.
Christopher Green, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0517, is available at
This notice announces the cancellations, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit. The following registration numbers that were listed in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the November 21, 2016
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is August 21, 2017. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.
The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II until August 21, 2018, which is 1 year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting on July 13, 2017.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This Meeting was Closed to the Public.
This meeting was continued on Tuesday, August 15, 2017.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 15, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Ben Rossen (202-326-3679) and James Trilling (202-326-3497), Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 15, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 15, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Uber Technologies, Inc., File No. 152-3054” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Uber Technologies, Inc., File No. 152-3054” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission again will review the agreement and the comments received
Since 2010, Uber has operated a mobile application (the “App”) that connects consumers who are transportation providers (“Drivers”) with consumers seeking those services (“Riders”). Riders book transportation or delivery services through a publicly-available version of the App that can be downloaded to a smartphone. When a Rider requests transportation through the App, the request is conveyed to a nearby Uber Driver signed into the App.
Drivers are consumers who use the App to determine which ride requests they will accept. Uber collects a variety of personal information from Drivers, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, postal addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, bank account information, vehicle registration information, and insurance information. With respect to Riders, Uber collects names, email addresses, postal addresses, and detailed trip records with precise geolocation information, among other things.
In November 2014, Uber was the subject of various news reports describing improper access and use of consumer personal information, including geolocation information, by Uber employees. One article reported that an Uber executive had suggested that Uber should hire “opposition researchers” to look into the “personal lives” of journalists who criticized Uber's practices. Another article described an aerial tracking tool known as “God View” that displayed the personal information of Riders using Uber's services. These reports led to considerable consumer uproar and calls by consumers to stop using Uber's services. In an effort to respond to consumer concerns, Uber issued a statement describing its policies concerning access to Rider and Driver data. As part of that statement, Uber promised that all “access to rider and driver accounts is being closely monitored and audited by data security specialists on an ongoing basis, and any violations of the policy will result in disciplinary action, including the possibility of termination and legal action.”
As alleged in the proposed complaint, Uber has not monitored or audited its employees' access to Rider and Driver personal information on an ongoing basis since November 2014. In fact, between approximately August 2015 and May 2016, Uber did not timely follow up on automated alerts concerning the potential misuse of consumer personal information, and for approximately the first six months of this period only monitored access to account information belonging to a set of internal high-profile users, such as Uber executives. During this time, Uber did not otherwise monitor internal access to personal information unless an employee specifically reported that a co-worker had engaged in improper access. The proposed complaint alleges that Uber's representation that it closely monitored and audited internal access to consumers' personal information was false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act in light of Uber's subsequent failure to monitor and audit such access between August 2015 and May 2016.
The proposed complaint also alleges that Uber failed to provide reasonable security for consumer information stored in a third-party cloud storage service provided by Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) called the Amazon Simple Storage Service (the “Amazon S3 Datastore”). Uber stores a variety of files in the Amazon S3 Datastore that contain sensitive personal information, including full and partial back-ups of Uber databases. These back-ups contain a broad range of Rider and Driver personal information, including, among other things, names, email addresses, phone numbers, driver's license numbers and trip records with precise geolocation information.
From July 13, 2013 to July 15, 2015, Uber's privacy policy described the security measures Uber used to protect the personal information it collected from consumers, stating that such information “is securely stored within our databases, and we use standard, industry-wide commercially reasonable security practices such as encryption, firewalls and SSL (Secure Socket Layers) for protecting your information—such as any portions of your credit card number which we retain . . . and geo-location information.” Additionally, Uber's customer service representatives offered assurances about the strength of Uber's security practices to consumers who were reluctant to submit personal information to Uber.
As described below, the proposed complaint alleges that the above statements violated Section 5 of the FTC Act because Uber engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable security to prevent unauthorized access to Rider and Driver personal information in the Amazon S3 Datastore. Specifically, Uber allegedly:
• Until approximately September 2014, failed to implement reasonable access controls to safeguard data stored in the Amazon S3 Datastore. For example, Uber (1) permitted engineers to access the Amazon S3 Datastore with a single, shared AWS access key that provided full administrative privileges over all data stored there; (2) failed to restrict access to systems based on employees' job functions; and (3) failed to require multi-factor authentication for access to the Amazon S3 Datastore;
• Until approximately September 2014, failed to implement reasonable security training and guidance;
• Until approximately September 2014, failed to have a written information security program; and
• Until approximately March 2015, stored sensitive personal information in the Amazon S3 Datastore in clear, readable text, rather than encrypting the information.
As a result of these failures, on or about May 12, 2014, an intruder was able to gain access to Uber's Amazon S3 Datastore using an access key that one of Uber's engineers had posted to GitHub, a code-sharing site used by software developers. This key was publicly posted and granted full administrative privileges to all data and documents stored within Uber's Amazon S3 Datastore. The intruder accessed one file that contained sensitive personal information belonging to Uber Drivers, including over 100,000 unencrypted names and driver's license numbers, 215 unencrypted names and bank account and domestic routing numbers, and 84 unencrypted names and Social Security numbers. Uber did not discover the breach until September 2014, at which time Uber took steps to prevent further unauthorized access.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Uber from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.
Part I of the proposed order prohibits Uber from making any misrepresentations about the extent to which Uber monitors or audits internal access to consumers' Personal Information or the extent to which Uber protects the privacy, confidentiality, security, or integrity of consumers' Personal Information.
Part II of the proposed order requires Uber to implement a mandated comprehensive privacy program that is reasonably designed to (1) address privacy risks related to the development and management of new and existing products and services for consumers, and (2) protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers' personal information.
Part III of the proposed order requires Uber to undergo biennial assessments of its mandated privacy program by a third party.
Parts IV through VIII of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Part IV requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to all current and future principals, officers, directors, and managers, and to persons with managerial or supervisory responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part V mandates that Uber submit a compliance report to the FTC one year after issuance of the order and submit additional notices as specified. Parts VI and VII require Uber to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order, and to provide such additional information or documents necessary for the Commission to monitor compliance. Part VIII states that the Order will remain in effect for 20 years.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an existing information clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a new information collection requirement for Service Contracts Reporting Requirements. A notice published in the
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Submit comments in response to OMB Control 9000-0179, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with OMB Control 9000-0179 at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “OMB Control 9000-0179” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, at 202-501-1448 or via email at
Section 743(a) of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117) requires executive agencies covered by the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act (Pub. L. 105-270), except DoD, to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) annually an inventory of activities performed by service contractors. DoD is exempt from this reporting requirement because 10 U.S.C. 2462 and 10 U.S.C. 2330a(c) already require DoD to develop an annual service contract inventory.
House Report 111-366 notes, in connection with section 743, that, “in the absence of complete and reliable information on the extent of their reliance on service contractors, Federal agencies are not well-equipped to determine whether they have the right balance of contractor and in-house resources needed to accomplish their missions. Therefore, this rule intends to supplement agency annual service contract reporting requirements with the contractor provided service contract reporting information.
The information is to be submitted pursuant to clauses 52.204-14 and 52.204-15. Certain prime service contractors will provide annually—
a. The contract number, and, as applicable, order number;
b. The total dollar amount invoiced for services performed during the previous Government fiscal year under the contract;
c. The number of contractor direct labor hours expended on the services performed during the previous Government fiscal year; and
d. Data reported by subcontractors.
The prime contractor shall require each first-tier subcontractor performing under the contract to provide annually—
a. The subcontract number (including subcontractor name and if available, Unique Entity Identifier number; and
b. The number of first-tier subcontractor direct-labor hours expended on the services performed during the previous Government fiscal year.
In order to invoice the government for time-and-material/labor-hour (T&M/LH) and cost-reimbursement contracts, contractors already track labor hours expended, so the rule will cover T&M/LH and cost-reimbursement contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold.
Fixed price contracts are covered if the estimated total value is at $500,000 or more in FY 2016 and thereafter.
For indefinite-delivery contracts, including but not limited to, indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, Governmentwide Acquisition contracts (GWACs), and multi-agency contracts, reporting requirements will be determined based on the expected dollar amount and type of the orders issued under the contracts.
The burden has increased from the one in
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted 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 notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
CDC Oral Health Management Information System (OMB Control Number 0920-0739, expiration date 5/31/2017)—Reinstatement with Change. Division of Oral Health (DOH), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC works with state health departments to improve the oral health of the nation. Targeted efforts include building and/or maintaining an effective public health capacity for the implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence-based practices in oral health disease prevention and advancement of oral health. Through a cooperative agreement program (Program Announcement DP13-1307), CDC has provided funding to 21 states over a 5-year period. This cooperative agreement went into effect in September 2013 and builds upon previously funded collaborations between CDC and state-based oral health programs.
Currently, CDC does not have approval to collect annual progress and activity reports from state-based oral health programs using the Chronic Disease Management Information System (CDMIS). The information collected in the Management Information System (MIS) improves CDC's ability to disseminate information about successful public health approaches that are potentially replicable and adaptable for use in other states.
CDC requests a reinstatement with change to continue collecting information for two additional years. The estimated burden decreased from 255 to 171 hours as programs no longer have to repeat the initial entry of administrative data after the first year. The estimated burden for system maintenance and annual reporting is three hours for Basic-level awardees. The estimated burden for system maintenance and annual reporting is nine hours for Enhanced-level awardees. State awardees submit reports to CDC annually; however, states may enter updates in the MIS at any time.
CDC collects all information electronically and uses this information to monitor awardee activities and to provide any needed technical assistance or follow-up support.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 171.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The annual National Health Interview Survey is a major source of general statistics on the health of the U.S. population.
Written comments must be received on or before October 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0063 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0124, Exp. 12/31/2019)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C.), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.
The annual National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a major source of general statistics on the health of the U.S. population and has been in the field continuously since 1957. This voluntary and confidential household-based survey collects demographic and health-related information from a nationally-representative sample of households and noninstitutionalized, civilian persons throughout the country. NHIS data have long been used by government, academic, and private researchers to evaluate both general health and specific issues, such as smoking, diabetes, health care coverage, and access to health care. The survey is also a leading source of data for the Congressionally-mandated “Health US” and related publications, as well as the single most important source of statistics to track progress toward Departmental health objectives.
The 2018 NHIS questionnaire remains largely unchanged from its 2017 version, with the exception of new supplements that are being added on asthma and cancer control. These supplements replace those from 2017 on receipt of culturally and linguistically appropriate health care services, epilepsy, cognitive disability, complementary health, hepatitis B/C screening, vision, and heart disease and stroke prevention. Continuing from 2017 are questions about access to and utilization of care and barriers to care, chronic pain, diabetes, disability and functioning, family food security, ABCS of heart disease and stroke prevention, immunizations, smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes, and children's mental health.
In addition, in the last quarter of 2018, a portion of the regular 2018 NHIS sample will be used to carry out a dress rehearsal and systems test of the redesigned NHIS questionnaire that is scheduled for launch in January 2019. The redesigned questionnaire revises the NHIS both in terms of content and
As in past years, and in accordance with the 1995 initiative to increase the integration of surveys within the DHHS, respondents to the 2018 NHIS will serve as the sampling frame for the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. In addition, a subsample of NHIS respondents and/or members of commercial survey panels may be identified to participate in short, Web-based methodological and cognitive testing activities to evaluate the redesigned questionnaire and/or inform the development of new rotating and supplemental content using Web and/or mail survey tools.
There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. Clearance is sought for three years, to collect data for 2018-2020.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for RECUVYRA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that animal drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For animal drug products, the testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the animal drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for an animal drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product RECUVYRA (fentanyl). RECUVYRA is indicated for the control of postoperative pain associated with surgical procedures in dogs. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for RECUVYRA (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,299,900; 6,818,226; and 6,916,486) from Acrux DDS Pty. Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 26, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this animal drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of RECUVYRA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for RECUVYRA is 2,092 days. Of this time, 2,037 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 55 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,279 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing support for the 3.1 version of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data (SEND IG 3.1), the end of support for the 3.0 version of SEND IG, and an update to the FDA Data Standards Catalog (Catalog). (See
Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1115, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5333, email:
On December 17, 2014, FDA published final guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” (eStudy Data), posted on FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web page at
The transition date for support of version 3.1 of CDISC SEND IG is March 15, 2018. Although SEND IG version 3.1 is supported as of this
The transition date for the end of FDA support for SEND IG 3.0 is March 15, 2018. Therefore, FDA support for SEND IG 3.0 will end for studies that start after March 15, 2019. The Catalog will be updated to list March 15, 2019, as the “date support ends.”
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the referenced material at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act” (draft trading partner guidance). FDA is issuing this guidance to assist industry and State and local governments in understanding how to categorize the entities in the drug supply chain in accordance with the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). This guidance explains how to determine when certain statutory requirements will apply to entities that may be considered trading partners in the drug supply chain. FDA is also soliciting public input specific to the activities of “private-label distributors” of drug products and whether those activities fall within the definitions under DSCSA of the various trading partners.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 20, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Melissa Mannion, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3130,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” The DSCSA (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) establishes new requirements to develop and enhance drug distribution security by 2023. It does this, in part, by defining different types of entities in the drug supply chain as
In addition to comments on the draft guidance generally, FDA is requesting comments specifically related to the activities of private-label distributors (PLDs), and whether those activities fall within the definitions under DSCSA of the various trading partners. FDA considers a PLD to be an entity that owns and distributes a manufactured product under its own label or trade name. Because there are many different business models for PLDs, resulting in situations where a PLD could be considered a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or dispenser, we are asking for comments on how the different business models might impact a PLD's status as an authorized trading partner under the DSCSA.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (see 21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Identifying Trading Partners under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a publication containing modifications the Agency is making to the list of standards FDA recognizes for use in premarket reviews (FDA Recognized Consensus Standards). This publication, entitled “Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 047” (Recognition List Number: 047), will assist manufacturers who elect to declare conformity with consensus standards to meet certain requirements for medical devices.
Submit electronic or written comments concerning this document at any time. These modifications to the list of recognized standards are effective August 21, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
An electronic copy of Recognition List Number: 047 is available on the Internet at
Scott Colburn, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5514, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6287,
Section 204 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115) amended section 514 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360d). Amended section 514 allows FDA to recognize consensus standards developed by international and national organizations for use in satisfying portions of device premarket review submissions or other requirements.
In the
Modifications to the initial list of recognized standards published in the
These notices describe the addition, withdrawal, and revision of certain standards recognized by FDA. The Agency maintains hypertext markup language (HTML) and portable document format (PDF) versions of the list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards. Additional information on the Agency's standards program is available at
FDA is announcing the addition, withdrawal, correction, and revision of certain consensus standards the Agency is recognizing for use in premarket submissions and other requirements for devices. FDA is incorporating these modifications to the list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards in the Agency's searchable database. FDA is using the term “Recognition List Number: 047” to identify the current modifications.
In table 1, FDA describes the following modifications: (1) The withdrawal of standards and their replacement by others, if applicable; (2) the correction of errors made by FDA in listing previously recognized standards; and (3) the changes to the supplementary information sheets of recognized standards that describe revisions to the applicability of the standards.
In section III, FDA lists modifications the Agency is making that involve the initial addition of standards not previously recognized by FDA.
In table 2, FDA provides the listing of new entries and consensus standards added as modifications to the list of recognized standards under Recognition List Number: 047.
FDA maintains the current list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards in a searchable database that may be accessed at
Any person may recommend consensus standards as candidates for recognition under section 514 of the FD&C Act by submitting such recommendations, with reasons for the recommendation, to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for information and comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is establishing a public docket to assist with its development of recommendations regarding the communication of risk information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) broadcast advertisements for prescription drugs and biologics.
Although you can comment at any time, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment in our development of recommendations, submit either electronic or written information and comments by November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
The prescription drug advertising regulations require that broadcast advertisements containing product claims include information relating to the advertised drug's major side effects and contraindications in either the audio or audio and visual parts of the advertisement (21 CFR 202.1(e)(1)); this is often called the
From a public health standpoint, FDA is interested in helping to ensure that when firms choose to advertise directly to consumers and patients, such advertisements provide clear and useful information to that audience. There is concern that the major statement, as currently implemented in DTC broadcast advertisements for prescription drugs, is not fulfilling this purpose. Some believe it is often too long, which may result in reduced consumer comprehension, minimization of important risk information, and, potentially, therapeutic noncompliance caused by fear of side effects (Ref. 1). At the same time, there is concern that DTC broadcast advertisements do not include adequate risk information or that they leave out important information (Refs. 2 and 3).
The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) within FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is investigating through empirical research the effectiveness of a
•
•
•
However, we note that while some drug products may not have severe, serious, or actionable risks as described in this document, all DTC prescription drug broadcast advertisements are required to present a fair balance of risk information when presenting information relating to the effectiveness of the drug (21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)). Therefore, to avoid a misleading presentation regarding a drug's risk-benefit profile, prescription drug advertisements that provide information about a drug's effectiveness would be expected to contain some risk information, even if the risks are not severe, serious, or actionable.
Interested persons are invited to provide detailed information and comments on the content of risk information in DTC broadcast advertisements for prescription drugs. FDA is particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
1. What data are available regarding the impact of the current approaches to communication of risk information in DTC prescription drug broadcast advertisements on consumer comprehension of the information in the advertisement, including the impact on comprehension of product benefits and risk information?
2. What are the potential effects of only including risks from the FDA-approved product labeling that are
3. When a DTC prescription drug broadcast advertisement presents information relating to the effectiveness of a prescription drug that does not have severe, serious, or actionable risks, what types of risk could be included in the major statement?
4. What criteria should be used to distinguish risk information that is most
5. What criteria should be used to determine which risk information that is material to patient or consumer audiences to include in the major statement for DTC prescription drug broadcast advertisements to best protect the public health? What data are available to answer this question?
6. What is the potential impact of including (or conversely, of not including), in the major statement for DTC prescription drug broadcast advertisements, additional language that states that there are other risks not included in the advertisement while simultaneously encouraging dialogue between patients and their health care providers? (For example, additional language could include, “This is not a full list of risks and side effects. Talk to your health care provider and read the patient labeling for more information.”) What data are available to answer this question?
7. What data are available on consumers' comprehension of the difference between levels (
a. For drugs with
b. For drugs with
c. For drugs with no severe or serious risks: “[Drug] can cause reactions. These include . . . .”
8. Should potential food and drug interactions be disclosed in DTC prescription drug broadcast advertisements, and if so, what criteria should be used to identify these interactions?
FDA will consider all information and comments submitted.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff office (see
1. Delbaere, M. and M.C. Smith, “Health Care Knowledge and Consumer Learning: The Case of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising,”
2. Friedman, M. and J. Gould, “Consumer Attitudes and Behaviors Associated With Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Marketing,”
3. Frosch, D.L., P.M. Krueger, R.C. Hornik, P.F. Cronholm, and F.K. Barg, “Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising,”
National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the charter for the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) has been renewed.
National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email:
NVAC is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee. The establishment of NVAC was mandated under Section 2105 (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-5) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (PHS Act). The Committee is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). NVAC advises and makes recommendations to the Director, National Vaccine Program (NVP), on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health is appointed to serve as the Director, NVP.
To carry out its mission, NVAC (1) studies and recommends ways to encourage the availability of an adequate supply of safe and effective vaccination products in the United States; (2) recommends research priorities and other measures the Director of the NVP should take to enhance the safety and efficacy of vaccines; (3) advises the Director of the NVP in the implementation of Sections 2102 and 2103 of the PHS Act; and (4) identifies annually for the Director of the NVP the most important areas of governmental and non-governmental cooperation that should be considered in implementing Sections 2101 and 2103 of the PHS Act.
On July 21, 2017, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Health approved renewal of the NVAC charter with minor amendments. The new charter was effected and filed with the appropriate Congressional committees and Library of Congress on July 30, 2017. Renewal of the NVAC charter gives authorization for the Committee to continue to operate until July 30, 2019.
A copy of the NVAC charter is available on the Web site for the National Vaccine Program Office at
The Indian Health Service (IHS), Office of Clinical and Preventive Service, Division of Behavioral Health (DBH), is accepting applications for cooperative agreements for Zero Suicide Initiative (ZSI)—to develop a comprehensive model of culturally informed suicide care within a system of care framework. This program was first established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, Public Law 115-31, 131 Stat. 135 (2017). This program is authorized under the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13 and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Subchapter V-A (Behavioral Health Programs), 25 U.S.C. 1665
For at least the past fifteen years deaths by suicide have been steadily increasing. On April 22, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics released a data report,
• From 1999 through 2014, the age-adjusted suicide rate in the United States increased 24%, from 10.5 to 13.0 per 100,000 population, with the pace of increase greater after 2006.
• Suicide rates increased from 1999 through 2014 for both males and females and for all ages 10-74.
• The percent increase in suicide rates for females was greatest for those aged 10-14, and for males, those aged 45-64.
• The most frequent suicide method in 2014 for males involved the use of firearms (55.4%), while poisoning was the most frequent method for females (34.1%).
There is a sizable disparity when comparing the rate for the general U.S. population to the rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). During 2007-2009, the suicide rate for AI/ANs was 1.6 times greater than the U.S. all-races rate for 2008 (18.5 vs. 11.6 per 100,000 population).
The `Zero Suicide' initiative is a key concept of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention (NSSP) and is a priority of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention (
Applicants are encouraged to visit:
The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to improve the system of care for those at risk for suicide by implementing a comprehensive, culturally informed, multi-setting approach to suicide prevention in Indian health systems. This award represents a continuation of IHS's efforts to implement the Zero Suicide approach in Indian Country. Existing efforts have focused on training, technical assistance, and consultation for several `pilot' AI/AN Zero Suicide communities. As a result of these efforts, both the unique opportunities and challenges of implementing Zero Suicide in Indian Country have been identified. To best capitalize on opportunities and surmount such challenges, this award focuses on the core Seven Elements of the Zero Suicide model as developed by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC):
• Lead—Create a leadership-driven, safety-oriented culture committed to dramatically reducing suicide among people under care. Include survivors of suicide attempts and suicide loss in leadership and planning roles;
• Train—Develop a competent, confident, and caring workforce;
• Identify—Systematically identify and assess suicide risk among people receiving care;
• Engage—Ensure every individual has a pathway to care that is both timely and adequate to meet his or her needs. Include collaborative safety planning and restriction of lethal means;
• Treat—Use effective, evidence-based treatments that directly target suicidal thoughts and behaviors;
• Transition—Provide continuous contact and support, especially after acute care; and
• Improve—Apply a data-driven, quality improvement approach to inform system changes that will lead to improved patient outcomes and better care for those at risk.
More specifically, each applicant will be required to address the following goals in their project narrative.
• Establishment of a leadership-driven commitment to transform the way suicide care is delivered within AI/AN health systems. Associated activities should describe the organizational steps to broaden the responsibility for suicide care to the entire system and emphasize the specific role of leadership to ensure that it is achieved.
• Assessment of training needs and creation of a training plan to develop and advance the skills of health care staff and providers at all levels. The aim of such trainings must target increased competence and confidence in the delivery of culturally informed, evidence-based suicide care.
• Implementation of policies and procedures for comprehensive clinical standards, including universal screening, assessment, treatment, discharge planning, follow-up, and means restriction for all patients under care and at risk for suicide (see
• Development of strategy to collect, analyze, use, and disseminate data to enhance and better inform suicide care across the health system.
• Application of evidence-based practices to screen, assess, and treat individuals at risk for suicide that incorporates culturally informed practices and activities.
• Development of a Suicide Care Management Plan for every individual identified as at risk of suicide to include continuous monitoring of the individual's progress through their electronic health record (EHR) or other data management system, and adjust treatment as necessary. The Suicide Care Management Plan must include the following:
○ Protocols for safety planning and reducing access to lethal means;
○ Rapid follow-up of adults who have attempted suicide or experienced a suicidal crisis after being discharged from a treatment facility
○ Protocols to ensure client safety, especially among high-risk adults in health care systems who have attempted suicide, experienced a suicidal crisis, and/or have a serious mental illness. This must include outreach telephone contact within 24 to 48 hours after discharge and securing an appointment within 1 week of discharge.
Applicants are encouraged to visit
Because relatively few resources currently exists that promote the use of culturally informed practices and activities for use with Evidence Based Practices (EBPs) in the treatment of suicide risk, applicants are also encouraged to explore, develop, and catalogue culturally informed practices and activities, and, utilize such activities and practices in conjunction with EBPs where appropriate. Applicants are expected to include how they plan to incorporate the use of culturally informed practices and activities in the Project Narrative.
In addition to the Web site noted above, applicants may provide information on research studies to show that the services/practices applicants plan to implement are evidence-based. This information is usually published in research journals, including those that focus on minority populations. If this type of information is not available, applicants may provide information from other sources, such as unpublished studies or documents describing formal consensus among recognized experts.
Cooperative Agreement.
The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2018 is approximately $2,000,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be approximately $400,000. The amount of funding available for non-competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
Approximately five (5) awards will be issued under this program announcement.
The project period is for three years and will run consecutively from November 1, 2017, to October 31, 2020.
Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. However, the funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated.
IHS is interested in assessing the extent to which strategies employed by grantees are consistent with the Zero Suicide model, assessing the feasibility of implementing the Zero Suicide model in health care settings, and determining the outcomes associated with implementation. Enhanced evaluation questions may also be required of grantees to address these key evaluation goals.
The following is a partial list of the level of involvement by IHS and other expectations of the grantee/awardee:
(1) Approve proposed key positions/personnel.
(2) Facilitate linkages to other IHS/federal government resources and help grantees access appropriate technical assistance.
(3) Assure that the grantee's projects are responsive to IHS's mission, specifically the implementation of Zero Suicide Initiative.
(4) Coordinate cross-site evaluation participation in grantee and staff required monitoring conference calls.
(5) Promote collaboration with other IHS and federal health and behavioral health initiatives, including the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention (NAASP), the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPLL), and the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC).
(6) Provide technical assistance on sustainability issues.
(1) Seek IHS's approval for key positions to be filled. Key positions include, but are not limited to, the Project Director and Evaluator.
(2) Consult and accept guidance from IHS staff on performance of programmatic and data collection activities to achieve the goals of the cooperative agreement.
(3) Maintain ongoing communication with IHS including a minimum of one call per month, keeping federal program staff informed of emerging issues, developments, and problems as appropriate.
(4) Invite the IHS Program Official to take part in policy, steering, advisory, or other task forces.
(5) Maintain ongoing collaboration with the IHS National Evaluation contractor, the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
(6) Provide required documentation for monthly and annual reporting, and data surveillance around suicidal behavior in selected health and behavioral health care systems.
The following are examples of types of direct services that could be provided using the award (be sure to describe your use of grant funds for these activities in Project Narrative):
• Hire new staff or pay for salary;
• Universal Screening of all individuals receiving care to identify risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors;
• Conducting comprehensive risk assessment of individuals identified at risk for suicide, and ensure reassessment as appropriate;
• Implementation of effective, evidence-based treatments that specifically treat suicidal ideation and behaviors;
• Training of clinical staff to provide direct treatment in suicide prevention and evaluate individual outcomes throughout the treatment process;
• Training of the health care workforce in suicide prevention evidence-based, best-practice services relevant to their position, including the identification, assessment, management and treatment, and evaluation of individuals throughout the overall process;
• Ensuring that the most appropriate, least restrictive treatment and support is provided, including brief intervention and follow-up from crisis, respite and residential care, and partial or full hospitalization; and
• Developing protocols for every individual identified as at risk of suicide to continuously monitor the individual's progress through their electronic health record (EHR) or other data management system to include the following:
○ Protocols for safety planning and reducing access to lethal means;
○ Rapid follow-up of adults who have attempted suicide or experienced a suicidal crisis after being discharged from a treatment facility
○ Protocols to ensure client safety, especially among high-risk adults in health care systems who have attempted suicide, experienced a suicidal crisis, and/or have a serious mental illness. This must include outreach telephone
The following are examples of types of program operations and development that could be provided using the award (be sure to describe your use of grant funds for these activities in Project Narrative):
• Hire new staff or pay for salary;
• Transforming the health system to include a leadership-driven, safety-oriented culture committed to dramatically reducing suicide among people under care, and to accept and embed the Zero Suicide model within their agencies;
• Developing partnerships with other service providers for service delivery;
• Adopting and/or enhancing your computer system, management information system (MIS), electronic health records (EHRs), etc., to document and manage client needs, care process, integration with related support services, and outcomes;
• Training/education/workforce development to aid current staff or other providers in the community identify mental health or substance abuse issues or provide effective services consistent with the purpose of the grant program; and
• Developing policy(ies) to support needed service system improvements (
To be eligible for this new funding opportunity under this announcement, an applicant must be defined as one of the following under 25 U.S.C. 1603:
• A Federally recognized Indian Tribe as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(14).
• A Tribal organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(26).
• An urban Indian organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(29); operating an Indian health program operated pursuant to as contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or compact with the IHS pursuant to the ISDEAA, (25 U.S.C. 5301
Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.
IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.
If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the Estimated Funds Available section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.
An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include Tribal resolutions from all affected Tribes to be served. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require a specific Tribal resolution if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities.
An official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to a Notice of Award (NoA) being issued to any applicant selected for funding. However, if an official signed Tribal resolution cannot be submitted with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date, a draft Tribal resolution must be submitted by the deadline in order for the application to be considered complete and eligible for review. The draft Tribal resolution is not in lieu of the required signed resolution, but is acceptable until a signed resolution is received. If an official signed Tribal resolution is not received by DGM when funding decisions are made, then a NoA will not be issued to that applicant and they will not receive any IHS funds until such time as they have submitted a signed resolution to the Grants Management Specialist listed in this Funding Announcement.
Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.
An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS DGM by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at
The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.
• Application forms:
○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
• Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 5 pages).
• Project Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 20 pages).
○ Background information on the organization.
○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.
• Tribal Resolution(s).
• Letters of Support from organization's Board of Directors.
• 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).
• Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.
• Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).
• Organizational Chart (optional).
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).
Acceptable forms of documentation include:
○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site:
All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.
A.
Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they will not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 20 pages will be reviewed. The 20-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, timeline, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.
Applicants must include the following required application components:
• Cover letter.
• Table of contents.
• Abstract (must be single-spaced and should not exceed one page).
• Project Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 20 pages total).
○ Includes: Population of Focus and Statement of Need; Organizational Structure and Capacity; Implementation Approach; and Local Data Collection and Performance Measurement.
B.
Applications must be submitted electronically through
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.
• Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.
• IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the
If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through
Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact
• Upon contacting
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through
• Please use the optional attachment feature in
• All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.
• After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from
• Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.
All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through
All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site:
The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 20-page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 70 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:
The criteria in this section being evaluated includes the scope and scale of suicide behavior within the community served and systems challenges to providing comprehensive (see 7 Elements), culturally informed suicide care to those at risk for suicide. The following aspects will be assessed:
• A clear description of the proposed catchment area and demographic information on the population(s) to receive services through the targeted systems or agencies,
• Presentation of the prevalence of suicidal behavior (
• Documentation of the need for an enhanced infrastructure (system/process improvements) to increase the capacity to implement, sustain, and improve comprehensive, integrated, culturally informed, evidence-based suicide care within the identified health care system that is consistent with the purpose of the program as stated in this announcement. This may also include a clear description of any service gaps, staff/provider training deficits, service delivery fragmentations, and other barriers that could impact comprehensive suicide care for patients seen in the health system.
Documentation of need may come from a variety of qualitative and quantitative sources. Examples of data sources for the quantitative data that could be used are local epidemiologic data (Tribal Epidemiology Centers, IHS Area offices), state data (
This section focuses on how the organization may capitalize on existing resources, such as human capital, quality initiatives, collaborative agreements, and surveillance capabilities, as a means of overcoming barriers to a comprehensive, culturally informed, system of suicide care. The following aspects will be assessed:
• Thorough description of experience (successes and/or challenges) with the Zero Suicide model (
• Discussion of the applicant Tribe or Tribal organization experience with and capacity (or detailed plan) to provide culturally informed practices and activities for specific populations of focus.
• Identification of how all departments/units/divisions will be involved in administering this project. May also include how applicant organization currently (or plans to) collaborate with other organizations and agencies to provide care, including critical transition of care.
• Describe the resources available for the proposed project (
• Listing of all staff positions for the project, such as Project Director, project coordinator, and other key personnel, showing the role of each and their level of effort and qualifications. Demonstrate successful project implementation for the level of effort budgeted for Project Director, Project Coordinator, and other key staff.
Include position descriptions as attachments to the application for the Project Director, project coordinator, and all key personnel. Position descriptions should not exceed one page each.
Attachments will not count against the 20 page maximum.
Attachments will not count against the 20 page maximum.
Personally Identifiable Information;
Resumes; or
Curriculum Vitae.
The criteria being evaluated is the quality of your strategic approach and logical steps to implement a Zero Suicide Initiative within your health system. The following aspects will be assessed:
• A viable plan to address each of the 7 Elements in a systematic, measureable, and interrelated manner. Evidence of plan to the identification, use, and measurement of the use of culturally informed practices and activities. Please Include a Project Timeline as part of this section.
• A clear description of strategies to engage the highest levels of leadership and a broad cross section of the hospital system in order to develop organizational commitment, participation and sustainability (Letters of Commitment should be included as attachments). If the program is to be managed by a consortium or Tribal organization, identify how the project office relates to the member community/communities.
• A contingency plan that addresses short-term maintenance and long-term sustainability. How will continuity be maintained if/when there is a change in the operational environment (
•
• Include input of survivors of suicide attempts and suicide loss in assessing, planning and implementing your project.
In this area applicants need to clearly demonstrate the ability to collect and report on required data elements associated with Zero Suicide and this particular project; and engage in all aspects of local and national evaluation. The following aspects will be assessed:
• Ability to collect and report on the required performance measures specified in the Data Collection and Performance Management section.
• A clear, specific plan for data collection, management, analysis, and reporting. Indication of the staff person(s) responsible for tracking the measureable objectives that are identified above.
• Description of your plan for conducting the local performance assessment as specified above and evidence of your ability to conduct the assessment.
• Description of the quality improvement process that will be used to track progress towards your performance measures and objectives, and how these data will be used to inform the ongoing implementation of the project and beyond.
Applicants must provide a budget and narrative justification for proposed project budget. The following aspects will be assessed:
• Evidence of reasonable, allowable costs necessary to achieve the objective outlined in the project narrative.
• Description of how the budget aligns with the overall scope of work.
• Please use Budget/Budget Narrative Template Worksheet to support your responses in this section.
The Biographical Sketch, Timeline Chart, Local Data Collection Plan Worksheet, and Budget/Budget Narrative templates can be downloaded at the ZSI Web site.
Projects requiring a second and third year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.
• Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff.
• Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).
• Current Indirect Cost Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Map of area identifying project location(s).
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (
To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (
Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 70, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.
Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2018 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.
Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the Project Director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.
Cooperative Agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:
A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.
B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.
D. Cost Principles:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.
E. Audit Requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA)
The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, a summary of progress to date or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.
Federal Financial Report (FFR or SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at
Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with
IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after, and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.
For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see
The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see
Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.
Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site:
The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.
As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.
As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award.
Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.
Disclosures must be sent in writing to:
Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371. Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).
1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Sean Bennett, LCSW, BCD, Public Health Advisor, Division of Behavioral Health, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 08N34, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301)
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Andrew Diggs, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2241, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email:
3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, EMail:
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the meetings.
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 materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice.
The Coast Guard announces that it will impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving from the Federated States of Micronesia. Conditions of entry are intended to protect the United States from vessels arriving from countries that have been found to have deficient port anti-terrorism measures in place.
The policy announced in this notice will become applicable September 5, 2017.
For information about this document call or email Juliet Hudson, International Port Security Evaluation Division, United States Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1173,
The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (“Administrative Procedure Act”), 46 U.S.C. 70110 (“Maritime Transportation Security Act”), and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(97.f). As delegated, section 70110(a) authorizes the Coast Guard to impose conditions of entry on vessels arriving in U.S. waters from ports that the Coast Guard has not found to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures.
On May 3, 2016 the Coast Guard found that ports in the Federated States of Micronesia failed to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures and that the Federated States of Microneisa's designated authority oversight, access control, security monitoring, security training programs, and security plans drills and exercises are all deficient.
On July 7, 2016, as required by 46 U.S.C. 70109, the Federated States of Micronesia was notified of this determination and given recommendations for improving antiterrorism measures and 90 days to respond. To date, we cannot confirm that the Federated States of Micronesia has corrected the identified deficiencies.
Accordingly, beginning September 5, 2017, the conditions of entry shown in Table 1 will apply to any vessel that visited a port in the Federated States of Micronesia in its last five port calls.
The following countries currently do not maintain effective anti-terrorism measures and are therefore subject to conditions of entry: Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Nauru, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Syria, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. This list is also available in a policy notice available at
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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than October 20, 2017) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0103 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.
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 (PRA). 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 1651-0019 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). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. 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, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. Bayamón, PR, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and
Intertek USA, Inc. was accredited and approved, as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of September 27, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2019.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500 N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., Hwy 28 KM 2.0, Luchetti Industrial Park, Bayamón, PR 00961, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent to implement fees.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our intent to implement amenity fees at Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), located in Kentucky, as authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). We will implement annual hunting and fishing fees and special permit fees for commercial recreational activities. Under REA provisions, the Refuge will identify and post the specific fees.
Submit your written comments on this action no later than February 20, 2018. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you reference or provide. Such information may lead to a final decision that differs from this proposal.
Unless we publish a notice in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael Johnson, at (270) 527-5770.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our intent to implement amenity fees at Clarks River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), located in Kentucky, as authorized by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6801-6814; REA). Under REA provisions, the Refuge will identify and post the specific fees.
Under section 3 of the REA, we will implement the following fees at the Refuge:
• A $15 annual hunting and fishing permit for adults, and a $5.00 annual hunting and fishing permit for seniors. There is no fee for youth under the age of 16.
• A minimum of $50 annual recreational special use permit for commercial recreational activities.
These permits will not only allow the Refuge to better track visitor numbers and usage of the Refuge and harvest data, but will also provide the Refuge with fees to be used to offset expenses for road and parking lot maintenance, boundary maintenance, brochures, public education programs, law enforcement salaries, and expansion/improvements of visitor amenities. It is our policy to allow only activities that are appropriate and compatible with the Refuge's purposes.
In accordance with regulations governing the National Wildlife Refuge System (50 CFR part 25, subpart E) a Refuge may implement fees and other reasonable charges for public recreational use of lands administered by that Refuge. When considering fees, a Refuge is required by our regulations to evaluate the following:
• The direct and indirect cost to the Government;
• The benefits to a permit holder;
• The public interest served;
• Comparable fees charged by non-Federal public agencies; and
• The economic and administrative feasibility of fee collection.
The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, allows National Wildlife Refuges to provide wildlife-dependent recreation to visitors, but these laws require Refuges to manage for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitat for present as well as future generations of Americans. To fulfill the obligations, the Refuge plans to use collected fees to defray costs associated with visitor amenities.
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.
In December 2004, the REA became law (16 U.S.C. 6801-6814). The REA provides authority for the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and Agriculture to establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation fees for use of some Federal recreation lands and waters, and contains specific provisions addressing public involvement in the establishment of recreation fees. The REA also directs the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to publish advance notice in the
Should public comment provide substantive reasons why we should not implement the proposed fee program at the Refuge, we may reevaluate our plan and publish a subsequent notice in the
16 U.S.C. 6801-6814.
This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on August 16, 2017.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC). The NGAC, which is composed of representatives from governmental, private sector, non-profit, and academic organizations, has been established to advise the Chair of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) on management of Federal geospatial programs, the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), and the implementation of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16.
The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on September 6, 2017, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on September 7, 2017 (times are Eastern Daylight Time).
The meeting will be held at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC), 698 Conservation Way, Shepherdstown, WV 25443. Send your comments to Group Federal Officer by email to
Mr. John Mahoney, Senior Advisor to the Executive Director, FGDC, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); phone (206) 220-4621; email
The NGAC provides advice and recommendations related to management of Federal and national geospatial programs, the development of the NSDI, and the implementation of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16 and Executive Order 12906. The NGAC will review and comment upon geospatial policy and management issues and will provide a forum to convey views representative of non-federal stakeholders in the geospatial community. NGAC is one of the primary ways that the FGDC collaborates with its broad network of partners.
Meetings of the NGAC are open to the public. Additional information about the meeting is available at
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance. Registrations are due by September 1, 2017. While the meeting will be open to the public, registration is required for entrance to the NCTC facility, and seating may be limited due to room capacity. The meeting will include an opportunity for public comment on September 7, 2017. Attendees wishing to provide public comment should register by September 1, 2017. Please register by contacting Lucia Foulkes at the FGDC, USGS; phone (703) 648-4142; email
On August 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Agency's motion to dissolve the stay of my Order of September 8, 2015, revoking DEA Certificate of Registration No. RD0277409 issued to Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.
On January 24, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, issued an Order to Show Cause to Arnold E. Feldman, M.D. (Respondent), of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BF4179203, and the denial of his application for a registration, on the ground that he “do[es] not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Louisiana, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered . . . and [is] applying” for registration. Show Cause Order, at 1.
As to the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is “registered . . . as a data-waived/100 practitioner in [s]chedules II-V pursuant to [Registration No.] BF4179203 with a registered address at 505 East Airport [Blvd.], Baton Rouge, Louisiana,” and that this registration does not expire until “September 30, 2018.”
As to the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent's “[a]uthority to prescribe and administer controlled substances in the State of Louisiana was suspended effective October 19, 2016.”
The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to request a hearing on the allegation or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing and the procedure for electing either option.
On February 23, 2017, Respondent requested a hearing on the allegation. Letter from Respondent to Hearing Clerk, Office of Administrative Law Judges (Feb. 23, 2017). The same day, the matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Charles Wm. Dorman (hereinafter, ALJ), who issued an order (also on Feb. 23) directing the Government to file evidence supporting the allegation by March 10, 2017 at 2 p.m., as well any motion for summary disposition. Briefing Schedule For Lack Of State Authority Allegations, at 1. The ALJ's order also provided that if the Government moved for summary disposition, Respondent's opposition was due by March 24, 2017 at 2 p.m.
The next day, Respondent emailed the ALJ's law clerk seeking a continuance in order to engage counsel. Email from Respondent to ALJ's law clerk (Feb. 24, 2017). Respondent explained that he was seeking the continuance because “I have court cases pending in multiple jurisdictions including a Mar 16 hearing, a Mar 20 hearing in Mississippi and appeals in Louisiana and Mississippi and California.”
On March 2, 2017, the Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition. As support for its motion, the Government provided: (1) A copy of Respondent's registration; (2) his July 30, 2013 application for registration as a hospital/clinic; (3) the Decision and Order of the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (Aug. 15, 2016) which ordered the suspension of his medical license for a period of two years to begin 30 days from the date of the Order, and a subsequent Order of the Board (Sept. 13, 2016), which extended the commencement of the suspension until October 14, 2016; (4) a copy of a judgment issued by the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans which stayed the Board's Order from October 14, 2016 through October 19, 2016 and further ordered the Board to “show cause” as to “why the stay should not continue”; and (5) a Declaration of a Diversion Investigator as to various matters, including that the Board's Order had gone into effect on October 19, 2016. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Appendix A-E.
On March 10, 2017, counsel for Respondent entered a notice of appearance. On March 23, 2017, Respondent filed his Reply to the Government's Motion.
Therein, “Respondent acknowledge[d] that his license to practice medicine in . . . Louisiana has been suspended in accordance with the . . . Board of Medical Examiners' Order.” Resp. Reply, at 1. Respondent contended, however, “that there are material questions of fact and law that require resolution in a plenary, evidentiary proceeding.”
According to Respondent, these issues were that he possesses “an active and unrestricted” license to practice medicine in Alabama and “a full and unrestricted Alabama Controlled
In Respondent's view, section 824 authorizes revocation “only if the registrant
Finally, Respondent contended that “[t]he Government's indiscriminate intermingling of [sections 823 and 824], and its misinterpretation of 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) amount to a violation of [his] constitutional right to travel.”
On April 3, 2017, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion. The ALJ found that “Respondent conceded in his Reply that his Louisiana medical license is currently suspended” and that “it is undisputed that . . . Respondent lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in Louisiana, where [he is] registered, and where [he] has applied for an additional” registration. R.D. 6. Because Respondent is registered in Louisiana, the ALJ found it irrelevant that Respondent holds a license to practice medicine in Alabama.
The ALJ also rejected Respondent's contention that the Agency's interpretation impairs his constitutional right to travel.
Respondent filed Exceptions to the ALJ's Recommended Decision. On May 1, 2017, the ALJ forwarded the record to me for Final Agency Action.
Having considered the record and Respondent's Exceptions, I reject Respondent's various contentions and adopt the ALJ's Recommended Decision. I will therefore also adopt the ALJ's recommendation that I revoke Respondent's registration and deny his application. I make the following findings.
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. BF4179203, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of: “The Pain Treatment CTR of B.R.,” 505 E. Airport Blvd., Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mot. for Summ. Disp., Appendix A. Under this registration, Respondent also holds an identification number (XF4179203),
On July 30, 2013, Respondent submitted an application to register an entity known as “First Choice Surgery Center of BA” as a Hospital/Clinic, at the same address as above.
Respondent also holds a medical license issued by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners. However, on August 15, 2016, the Board suspended his medical license for a period of two years; this Order became effective on or about October 19, 2016.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining
Respondent acknowledges that the Agency's precedents “do indeed reveal a consistent [and in his view] uncritical repetition of th[is] claim, to an extent . . . that the proposition has come to attain near sacrosanct status.” Exceptions, at 2. As he did before the ALJ, he contends that the Agency's rule “is based on the indiscriminate intermingling of” the registration requirements of section 823 and the suspension/revocation authority of section 824.
Respondent is mistaken. As the Agency has repeatedly noted, the Agency's rule actually derives from the text of section 802(21), which defines the term “practitioner,” and section 823(f). Notably, in section 802(21), Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). The text of this provision makes clear that a physician is not a practitioner within the meaning of the CSA if he is not “licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to dispense [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.”
To the same effect, Congress, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Thus, based on these provisions, the Agency held nearly forty years ago that “[s]tate authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance
As the ALJ recognized, the CSA also provides that “[a] separate registration shall be required at each principal place of business or professional practice where the applicant . . . dispenses controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. 822(e).
Notably, while Respondent holds a medical license in Alabama, his registration authorizes him to dispense controlled substances only in the State of Louisiana. Moreover, the Show Cause Order proposes only the revocation of this registration
As noted above, Respondent contends that Congress' use of the word “registrant” rather the word “practitioner” in section 824 is a clear indication that it did not intend to authorize an automatic, summary revocation . . . where a registrant has continued to maintain authority to practice and dispense under the laws of any state.” Exceptions, at 4. A practitioner is, however, a particular category of registrant and thus falls within section 824(a). Given the provisions of section 802(21) and 823(f), it is not clear why Congress needed to use the word “practitioner” in section 824(a) to authorize the Agency to effectuate the policy expressed by sections 802(21) and 823(f). Moreover, Respondent ignores that there is a good reason for why Congress used different language in sections 823(f) and 824(a) to describe the class of persons who are subject to each provision, and this reason provides no support for Respondent's contention.
Section 823(f) is specifically applicable to those applicants seeking registration as a practitioner, which is just one of eight different categories of registration under the CSA.
As explained above, the Agency's rule that revocation is warranted whenever a practitioner is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he engages in professional practice is derived from the specific provisions of the Act which define the term “practitioner” and set forth the registration requirements which are specifically applicable to practitioners.
Moreover, under DEA regulations, a practitioner's registration is good for a period of three years, after which a practitioner must submit a renewal application. Yet that renewal application remains subject to section 823(f), which requires that “the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” Respondent's view leads to the illogical result that a practitioner would need to hold state authority to obtain his initial registration and any subsequent renewal of the registration, but would not need to hold state authority during the intervening period between the granting of his initial application and the granting of his renewal application.
I reject Respondent's contention and adhere to the Agency's longstanding and consistent interpretation of the Act, which has been affirmed by two courts of appeals.
We find Hooper's contention unconvincing. Section 824(a) does state that the [Agency] may “suspend or revoke” a registration, but the statute provides for this sanction in five different circumstances, only one of which is loss of a State license. Because § 823(f) and § 802(21) make clear that a practitioner's registration is dependent upon the practitioner having state authority to dispense controlled substances, the [Agency's] decision to construe § 824(a)(3) as mandating revocation upon suspension of a state license is not an unreasonable interpretation of the CSA. The [Agency's] decision does not “read[] the suspension option” out of the statute, because that option may still be available for the other circumstances enumerated in § 824(a).
Respondent makes an additional argument beyond that made in
Respondent cites no authority for his contention that the various grounds set forth in section 824(a) pursuant to which the Agency is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration are merely “discretionary factors” in the same manner as are the public interest factors of section 823. Indeed, his argument is refuted by the texts of section 823(f) and 824(a) and the history of the CSA.
Notably, section 823(f) instructs that “[i]n determining the public interest, the following factors shall be considered” and then lists the five factors. 21 U.S.C. 823(f). By contrast, section 824(a) makes no reference to “factors.” Rather, the provision begins with the word “Grounds” and then states that “[a] registration pursuant to section 823 of this title . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that” one of the five different grounds apply to the registrant.
Had Congress intended that the various findings set forth in section 824(a) be treated as “discretionary factors,” it would have done so by using language similar to that it used in section 823(f).
Rather, the findings enumerated in section 824(a) are grants of authority, each of which provides an independent and adequate ground to impose a sanction on a registrant.
The Agency's interpretation is buttressed by the CSA's legislative history. As originally enacted, the CSA granted the Attorney General authority to suspend or revoke a registration:
(1) has materially falsified any application filed pursuant to or required by this title [the CSA] or title III [the Controlled Substance Import Export Act (CSIEA), 21 U.S.C. 951-971];
(2) has been convicted of a felony under [the CSA or CSIEA] or any other law of the United States, or of any State, relating to any substance defined in this title as a controlled substance; or
(3) has had his state license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent state authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.
Describing this provision, the House Report explained that “[s]ubsection (a) of this section empowers the Attorney General to revoke or suspend any registration issued under this title if it is found that the holder has falsified his application, lost his State license, or has been convicted of a felony violation relating to any controlled substance.” H. Rep. No. 91-1444 (1970),
Moreover, while in 1984, Congress amended the CSA by granting the Attorney General authority to deny an application for a practitioner's registration and to revoke an existing registration on public interest grounds, it did so to increase the Agency's authority to respond to the “[i]mproper diversion of controlled substances by practitioners,” which Congress explained “is one of the most serious aspects of the drug abuse problem.” H. Rep. No. 98-1030, at 266 (1984),
While Congress also amended section “824(a) to add to the current bases for denial, revocation, or suspension of registration a finding that registration would be inconsistent with the public interest on the grounds specified in [section] 823, which will include consideration of the new factors added by” the amendment,
Nor is there any merit to Respondent's contention that denying him “the opportunity to present other evidence supporting [his] continued registration” denies him due process. Exceptions, at 6. As explained above, in a proceeding brought against a practitioner under section 824(a)(3), the only fact that is material is whether the practitioner is currently authorized to dispense controlled substances under laws of the state in which he practices and is registered. Because “other evidence supporting [his] continued registration” is not material to the outcome of this proceeding, and Respondent was provided with the opportunity to put forward evidence disputing the only material fact at issue, I reject his contention that the use of summary disposition denied him due process.
I therefore reject each of Respondent's Exceptions. Based on the ALJ's finding that Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Louisiana, the State in which he holds the DEA registration at issue in this proceeding and seeks an additional registration, I will adopt the ALJ's recommended order that I revoke his registration and deny his application.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. BF4179203 issued to Arnold E. Feldman, M.D., as well as DATA Identification No. XF4179203, be, and they hereby are, revoked. I further order that the Application of Arnold E. Feldman, M.D., for a registration as a Hospital/Clinic, as well any application to renew the above the registration or for any other registration in the State of Louisiana, be, and it hereby is, denied. This ORDER is effective immediately.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns an answer and counterclaim filed by the United States on May 7, 2014, against Duarte Nursery, Inc. and
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Andrew Doyle, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento District, 501 I Street, Room 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of availability of the OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for FY 2018.
OMB is issuing the
SUBMISSION AND AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.—Each report required by this section shall be submitted, in the case of CBO, to the House of Representatives, the Senate and OMB and, in the case of OMB, to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President on the day it is issued. On the following day a notice of the report shall be printed in the
The OMB Sequestration Reports to the President and Congress is available on-line on the OMB home page at:
Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address:
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold nine meetings of the Humanities Panel, a Federal advisory committee, during September, 2017. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
See
The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506, unless otherwise indicated.
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room, 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning rates not of general applicability for Inbound Parcel Post (at Universal Postal Union (UPU) Rates). This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to rates not of general applicability for Inbound Parcel Post (at Universal Postal Union (UPU) Rates).
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend CFE Rules 502 and 535 related to recordkeeping requirements. The scope of this filing is limited solely to the application of the proposed rule amendments to security futures that may be traded on CFE. Although no security futures are currently listed for trading on CFE, CFE may list security futures for trading in the future. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 4 to the filing but is not attached to the publication of this notice.
In its filing with the Commission, CFE 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. CFE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CFE Rule 502 sets forth CFE's requirements relating to record retention periods and the inspection and delivery of books and records. CFE Rule 535 provides that any CFE Trading Privilege Holder subject to CFTC Regulation 1.31
The CFTC recently issued a final rulemaking regarding recordkeeping requirements which amends CFTC Regulation 1.31.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
• To prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
• to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and
• to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule change would align CFE's rules related to recordkeeping with the CFTC's amended recordkeeping requirements. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change furthers the ability of the Exchange to regulate its market by providing for updated and enhanced recordkeeping requirements (which include, among other things, a requirement to keep electronic records readily accessible for a [sic] five years).
CFE 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, in that the proposed rule change is consistent with the CFTC's amended recordkeeping requirements. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that the rule amendments included in the proposed rule change would apply equally to all CFE Trading Privilege Holders.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change will become operative on August 28, 2017. At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Act.
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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CFE-2017-002. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LCH SA is proposing to amend its (i) Reference Guide: CDS Margin Framework (“CDSClear Margin Framework” or “Framework”) and (ii) CDSClear Default Fund Methodology (“Default Fund Methodology”) to incorporate terms and to make conforming and clarifying changes to allow options on index credit default swaps (“CDS Options”) to be cleared by LCH SA.
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
In connection with the clearing of CDS Options, LCH SA proposes to modify its CDSClear Margin Framework and Default Fund Methodology to manage the risk arising from clearing CDS Options and to streamline the descriptions in the existing CDSClear Margin Framework and Default Fund Methodology to take into account CDS Options and improve the organization and clarity of the CDSClear Margin Framework and Default Fund Methodology.
The CDSClear Margin Framework will be reorganized to include a new introductory section covering the overall new structure of the Framework, which will include a description of the CDSClear pricing methodology and margin methodologies for single-name CDS, index CDS, and CDS Options. The margin methodologies used to calculate total initial margin will consist of seven components,
A new section on CDSClear pricing methodology is created as new Section 2 in the Framework to cover both CDS pricing (section 2.1) and CDS Options pricing (section 2.2). LCH SA does not propose any change to the methodology currently used to price CDS under Section 2.1 but because pricing is an input used by various margin components to calculate total initial margin, LCH SA believes it is appropriate to remove the CDSClear pricing methodology from the existing spread margin section and incorporate it under the new Section 2.
New section 2.2 describes the methodology that will be used to price CDS Options. LCH SA proposes to adopt a market standard model which makes certain adjustments to address the limitations of the classic Black-Scholes model and that is made available on Bloomberg (the “Bloomberg Model”) and is commonly used by both dealers and buy-side participants in order to facilitate communication on index swaptions. The limitations of the classic Black-Scholes model include the inability to reflect the contractual cash flow exchanged upfront upon the exercise of the option. Neglecting the upfront cash flow exchange would have a significant impact for deeply in-the-money payer options because setting the underlying par spread curve flat at the strike level would considerably reduce the risk duration and, therefore, the potential profits and losses (“P&Ls”) resulting from the option exercise with respect to such options. In addition, if a credit event occurs with respect to the underlying index CDS after the option was traded but before its expiry, the resulting loss would be settled if and only if the option is exercised, and settlement would occur on the day of exercise. Finally, the strike and spot for price-based CDS Options are expressed in price terms rather than in spread terms and, therefore, require price-to-spread conversion before using the Bloomberg Model. LCH SA proposes to incorporate the upfront cash flow amount to be exchanged upon exercise and the cash payment resulting from the settlement of credit events that would occur between the trade date and the expiry into the payoff amount at expiry in the CDS Option price definition. In addition, consistent with the Bloomberg Model, LCH SA also proposes to implement an adjusted spread in the log normal distribution by calibrating the spread to match the implied forward price, based on market quoted spreads, with certain assumptions made to improve the calibration in order to be able to price CDS Indices with a closed formula as the Bloomberg Model.
Revised section 2.3 covers the market data for CDS and CDS Options. Section 2.3.1 describes the market data LCH SA uses to build the database for single-name CDS covering the 10-year look-back period, which is the same as the description in the existing CDSClear Margin Framework with very minor technical edits to improve headings and to correct typographical errors.
New section 2.3.2 addresses implied volatility in the pricing of CDS Options. LCH SA proposes to rely on the stochastic volatility inspired or “SVI” model to construct volatility surfaces and to use the model to price or reprice a CDS Option as well as to interpolate the various implied volatilities obtained from the Bloomberg Model described above in a consistent manner. The choice of the SVI model is based upon considerations that the model is an appropriate fit with the historical data and that it guarantees a volatility surface free of static arbitrage (such as calendar and butterfly arbitrage) if the appropriate parameters are selected.
New section 2.3.3 describes the sources of historical data for CDS Option prices used by LCH SA to construct the database covering the 10-year look-back period. These sources consist of Markit's history of composite prices and specific dealers' history of prices. LCH SA will then use this data to extract historical implied volatility. In order to ensure that only SVI paramertizations that model the shape of the volatility curves well would be used in the construction of the time series, LCH SA would use a pre-defined coefficient of determination to measure how well the data fits the statistical model. Section 2.3.3 also describes other data to be used for purposes of constructing historical implied volatility in the case of missing at-the-money (“ATM”) volatility and SVI data points in the historical time series. If an option price cannot be obtained through members' contribution (as described below) or Markit, LCH SA may use the price from the then on-the-run series or use a proxy to determine the ATM volatility returns from other similar options or from the index spread returns.
Finally, new section 2.3.4 provides the source of new daily pricing data for CDS Options that will be used to update implied volatility on a daily basis. Similar to the current end-of-day pricing mechanism for CDS, LCH SA will require members to contribute prices on options for all strikes that are a multiple of five bps for iTraxx Europe Main or 25 bps for iTraxx Europe Crossover of a
A new Section 3 is created to provide the total initial margin framework. New section 3.1 provides a summary of the total initial margin framework, including a brief description of each of the seven components of the total initial margin.
New section 3.2 provides an overview of the risks captured by each margin component and the additional margin charges, as well as cash-flow specific considerations and adjustments made to the margin framework specific to U.S. dollar denominated CDS contracts. This re-organized overview is substantively consistent with the description in existing section 3.1.1 of the CDSClear Margin Framework except for the addition of the new vega margin which is proposed in connection with the clearing of CDS Options.
New Section 3.3 sets forth self-referencing margin, a component of the total initial margin, for both CDS and CDS Options. In the case of CDS, self-referencing margin is designed to cover the specific wrong way risk relating to a Clearing Member selling protection on itself through a CDS index or a client selling protection on the Clearing Member. Self-referencing margin reflects the P&L impact resulting from the Clearing Member defaulting on a sold-protection position in CDS referencing its own name with zero recovery. In the case of CDS Options, the P&L impact resulting from a Clearing Member defaulting on a sold-protection position in CDS referencing its own name can be calculated by taking the difference between the current option value and the option value incorporating a loss amount in the underlying CDS index.
New Section 3.4 sets forth spread margin for both CDS and CDS Options. There is no change proposed to the spread margin calculation for CDS, which would continue to be calculated using a value-at-risk model to build a distribution of potential losses from simulated scenarios based on the joint credit spread and volatility variations observed in the past. LCH SA then determines the expected shortfall based on a quantile of the worst losses that could happen in the case of unfavorable credit spread and volatility fluctuations within each 5-day scenario and takes the difference in P&Ls of each portfolio between the average of the prices beyond the 99.7 percent quantile of the portfolio and the current mark-to-market price of the portfolio as the expected shortfall. In addition, because the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) limits margin reduction from portfolio margining to no greater than 80 percent of the sum of the margins for each product calculated on an individual basis, LCH SA would determine the spread margin to be the maximum between the expected shortfall of the portfolio and 20 percent of the sum of the expected shortfalls across instruments.
The methodology for calculating spread margin would be the same for CDS Options, with two adjustments. First, in addition to simulated credit spreads, simulated volatilities would be calculated by defining a shifted volatility curve for each option expiry date. Both simulated credit spreads and simulated volatilities would be used to produce simulated option values as an input in the value-at-risk model to generate the expected shortfall. Second, in order to properly account for the impact of CDS Options which expire within the 5-day margin period of risk, LCH SA proposes to add to the Section 3.4 spread margin provisions regarding an assessment of whether a CDS Option would be exercised on expiry by considering the present value of an option on the date of expiry. If the assessment determines that the option would be exercised, LCH SA would take the resulting index CDS position into account in the expected shortfall calculation for the following days within the margin period of risk.
LCH SA is also proposing to move the discussion of margin impact related to clearing CDX IG/HY contracts to Section 3.4 without any substantive change and to delete the current Section 3 on “CDX IG/HY Specificity” in the CDSClear Margin Framework. This reorganization of the CDSClear Margin Framework is intended to streamline the presentation because the same spread margin methodology that applies to European CDS contracts would equally apply to U.S. dollar denominated contracts, with certain considerations given to the use of U.S. interest rate benchmarks, FX adjustment, use of shifted FX rate for computing historical expected shortfalls, and an FX haircut, as described in Section 3 of the current CDSClear Margin Framework.
New Section 3.5 sets forth short charge for both CDS and CDS Options, which replaces the former Section 4.1. As with the existing Framework, the purpose of the short charge is to address the jump-to-default risk,
The steps for determining the net short exposure and default probability per entity also remain the same with respect to CDS portfolios. LCH SA would define the net short exposure at the portfolio level, aggregating net notional by entity, applying a recovery rate and subtracting the variation margin already collected with respect to each entity, either as a single name or as part of an index. Because there are various transaction types and contract terms based on different ISDA definitions, LCH SA would calculate each reference entity's net exposure based on transaction types and contract terms across various possible scenarios, sum the exposures together according to the scenarios, and retain the worst scenario as the reference entity's net short exposure.
With respect to the determination of the short exposure for CDS Options, LCH SA believes that it would be appropriate to consider the P&L impact of a credit event experienced by a constituent of an index CDS underlying the CDS Option on the value of the option. Rather than repricing the option each day based on the spread level of
The total short exposures with respect to each reference entity would be the sum of (i) the net short exposure for the CDS contracts referencing such entity and (ii) the losses resulting from the CDS Options on index CDS with such entity as a constituent. A total short exposure will be calculated for each entity except for an entity experiencing a credit event or an entity that is a member or member's affiliate with respect to which a self-referencing margin is imposed. LCH SA will then be able to select the entity or entities for purposes of calculating the global short charge, HY short charge, and financial short charge.
In order to accommodate the addition of CDS Options to CDSClear's clearing services, LCH SA proposes to make certain adjustments to the short charge calculation. First, when calculating the total short exposure for each reference entity, including an entity that is a constituent of an index CDS underlying an option, the total short exposure would be calculated for each day within the 5-day margin period of risk using a simulated credit spread and ATM volatility data for both CDS and CDS options, instead of using the current spread as is the case for CDS only in the existing Framework.
Second, after entities are selected for calculating the global short charge, HY short charge and financial short charge, if a portfolio includes CDS Options, as a result of the non-linearity of options products, the total short exposure would not be the sum of the P&L impacts of each individual entity's default. Therefore, LCH SA proposes to calculate each of the global short charge, HY short charge and financial short charge by considering the combined P&L impacts of simultaneous defaults of the selected entities.
Third, because the total short exposure for each reference entity would be calculated using a simulated credit spread and ATM volatility data for both CDS and CDS Options, the global short charge, HY short charge and financial short charge derived from the selected entities' total short exposures would represent the jump-to-default risk and the market risk (
Finally, new Section 3.5 will also consider the impact of option expiry on the P&L as part of the short charge calculation. In this respect, LCH SA would consider two cases: (i) The option exercise decision occurs before the occurrence of two credit events, and therefore, the credit events would have no impact on the option exercise decision and would only impact the P&L if the option is exercised upon expiry; and (ii) the two credit events occur before the option exercise decision and therefore, would have impact on the option exercise. LCH SA would use the worst case in the short charge calculation.
New Section 3.6 sets forth interest rate risk margin for both CDS and CDS Options, which replaces the former Section 7 in the existing CDSClear Margin Framework. The methodology for calculating interest rate risk margin remains the same, except to provide for repricing CDS Option positions using the same “bump” parameters up and down computed by taking the 99.7 quantile of the interest rate return based on the same sample of dates in the spread historical database.
New Section 3.7 sets forth recovery rate risk margin for CDS, which replaces Section 6 in the existing CDSClear Margin Framework. The methodology for calculating recovery rate risk margin is the same as the existing Framework. Because recovery rate risk margin applies to only single-name CDS, no adjustment or change is necessary to accommodate the addition of CDS Options to the CDSClear services because the options are on index CDS.
New Section 3.8 sets forth wrong way risk margin, which replaces Section 5 in the existing CDSClear Margin Framework. The methodology for calculating wrong way risk margin is the same as the existing Framework with minor revisions to streamline the description and to improve readability.
New Section 3.9 sets forth a new margin component,
LCH SA proposes to create a new Section 4 in the CDSClear Margin Framework, which would cover (i) liquidity and concentration risk margin from Section 8 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework, (ii) accrued coupon liquidation risk margin from Section 9 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework, and (iii) credit event margin from Section 10 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework.
New Section 4.1 sets forth liquidity and concentration risk margin, which is moved from Section 8 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework. Liquidity and concentration risk margin is designed to mitigate the P&L impact as a result of an illiquid or concentrated position in a defaulting member's portfolio. The methodology for calculating liquidity and concentration risk margin for CDS contracts is the same as the existing Framework with minor revision to streamline the description and to improve readability. In order to accommodate the addition of CDS Options to the existing clearing services, LCH SA proposes changes to the existing liquidity and concentration risk margin methodology to cover portfolios containing CDS Options.
To calculate the liquidity charge for portfolios including CDS Options, LCH SA would consider the options separately from CDS in the portfolio. Given that the market will require options to be liquidated as a delta-hedged package, LCH SA would delta-hedge the positions underlying the options and most likely auction the options as a package separate from the remainder of the portfolio. LCH SA will attempt to source the hedges from the CDS part of the defaulting member's portfolio using a delta hedging algorithm to ensure minimal hedging costs before sourcing the hedges from the market.
After the options package is delta-hedged, from the bidders' perspective, the pricing of the auction package would consist of hedging the vega of the delta-neutral options package at different resolutions consecutively until the portfolio is fully unwound. The cumulative costs incurred in the successive vega hedging would reflect the liquidity charge for the options.
The liquidity charge for the entire portfolio will be the sum of the liquidity charge computed for the CDS component of the portfolio and the liquidity charge computed for the options component of the portfolio.
New Section 4.2 sets forth accrued coupon liquidation risk margin for both CDS and CDS Options. The accrued coupon liquidation risk margin with respect to CDS remains the same as section 9 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework with minor edits to improve clarity and readability. In addition, changes are proposed to address the accrued coupon liquidation risk for CDS Options. Because accrued coupon liquidation risk margin is designed to cover the accrued coupon payment during the 5-day liquidation period, LCH SA would be exposed to a coupon payment risk for an option only if the option expiry falls within the 5-day liquidation period and the option is exercised. Therefore, accrued coupon for options contracts with an expiry more than 5 days away will be zero and accrued coupon for options contracts with expiry falling within the 5-day liquidation period will be the accrued coupon for 5 days if the options are exercised. LCH SA would consider the option exercise decision based on the current spread level +/−
New Section 4.3 sets forth credit event margin, which is moved from section 10 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework. The overall approach to the calculation of the credit event margin remains the same with certain revisions to streamline the presentation and to improve clarity and readability. With respect to “hard” credit events, because the recovery rate is unknown before the auction occurs, LCH SA would impose credit event margin to cover an adverse 25 percent absolute recovery rate move from the credit event determination date to, and including, the auction date. After the auction, when the recovery rate is known, Credit Event Margin is no longer required, and cash flows are exchanged in advance through the Variation Margin to extinguish any risk of the future payment not being made. However, because of the addition of CDS Options, LCH SA proposes a number of changes to the calculation of credit event margin. First, if several credit events occur, LCH SA proposes to calculate the credit event margin with respect to each affected CDS and CDS Option contract by considering adverse recovery moves that could be a combination of upwards, downwards and flat on the different entities depending on the portfolio, instead of summing the credit event margin covering adverse 25 percent adverse recovery rate move for each reference entity as in the case of linear CDS. The aggregation of the P&L at the affected CDS and CDS Option contracts level would be the credit event margin at the portfolio level. After the credit event margin is calculated for each portfolio, the combination of adverse recovery rate moves retained for a particular Clearing Member's portfolio would also be used in the spread margin calculation in order to virtually shift the strikes of all option contracts experiencing the credit event. Second, currently, LCH SA separates credit event margin calculations with respect to the portfolio of a Clearing Member that is the protection seller of the CDS experiencing a credit event and the portfolio of a Clearing Member that is the protection buyer of the CDS experiencing a credit event. The protection seller would be required to pay a credit event margin and the protection buyer would pay a so-called “IM Buyer”, which corresponds to a margin charged to the buyer in the event of a credit event and is calculated in the same way as the calculation of the credit event margin with the only difference being the change in the direction of the shocks. With the addition of CDS Options, LCH SA proposes to use one terminology “credit event margin” calculated using the same methodology as the existing credit event margin calculation with respect to a Clearing Member's portfolio containing a contract affected by the credit event regardless of whether the Clearing Member is a protection buyer or protection seller.
Finally, with respect to restructuring events or so-called “soft” credit events, because different auctions may be held depending on the maturity of the contracts and therefore, the recovery rate could be different across all the contracts with various maturity dates, LCH SA proposes to consider each maturity separately instead of netting all positions with the same reference entity. For each given reference entity experiencing a restructuring event with respect to a given maturity, the calculation of the credit event margin is similar to that used for hard credit events.
New Sections 5, 6 and 7 set forth cash flow exchanges (in the form of variation margin, price alignment interest, quarterly coupon payments or upfront payments), contingency variation margin, and extraordinary margin. These sections are moved from Sections 11, 12 and 3.4 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework without substantive change and with minor revisions to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity and readability.
The new Section 8 Appendix sets forth the settlement agent and FX provider, FX haircut and quanto with respect to CDX IG/HY contracts. These are moved from Section 3.1.2, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the existing CDSClear Margin Framework without substantive change.
LCH SA also proposes to modify its Default Fund Methodology to incorporate terms for CDS Options and to make certain clarifying and conforming changes to the Default Fund Methodology.
Section 1 of the Default Fund Methodology, which outlines the stress risk framework, would be amended in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 to make formatting changes and clarifying changes to the text for readability.
Section 2 of the Default Fund Methodology sets forth the methodology used to calculate default fund, which is designed to cover the potential impact of the default of two or more Clearing Members in stressed market conditions in excess of initial margin held by LCH SA. Section 2.1 currently provides an overview of the framework for such methodology. The fundamental piece of the methodology is to identify stress testing scenarios to introduce market moves in so-called “extreme but plausible” market conditions beyond those applied to the margin calculation. Such stress testing scenarios would then be applied to Clearing Members' portfolios to calculate the P&L impacts and the sum of the two highest stress testing losses over initial margin (“STLOIM”) across all Clearing Members' portfolios. From there, LCH SA adds a 10 percent buffer to be the size of the default fund. Because of the addition of CDS Options, LCH SA proposes to amend Section 2.1 to take into account the new vega margin designed to address the skew risk and volatility of volatility risk particular to CDS Options that are not covered in the spread margin calculation. As a result, a stressed vega margin (in addition to the existing stressed spread margin and stressed short charge) would be calculated under the stress test scenarios. LCH SA would then calculate stress test losses (
Section 2.2 of the Default Fund Methodology would be modified to separate the description of the methodology for calculating P&L from the description of the stress testing scenarios. The description of the stress scenarios would be retained in Section 2.2 with certain clarifying changes for readability, and the description of the methodology for calculating the P&L for purposes of spread moves and short charge would be removed from Section 2.2 and replaced with new Sections 2.3 and 2.4. The various scenarios considered for the Default Fund Methodology would also be renumbered under new subsections 2.2.1 (Standard Scenarios), 2.2.2 (Dislocation Scenarios), 2.2.3 (SPAN Scenarios), 2.2.4 (2× Lehman Scenarios), 2.2.5 (Black Monday Scenario), 2.2.6 (Theoretical Scenarios), 2.2.7 (Theoretical 4× Bear Sterns Scenario), and 2.2.8 (Correlation Breakdown). A new set of scenarios would also be added in Section 2.2.9 (Volatility Scenarios), which considers movements in the implied ATM volatilities of index families, in both historical and theoretical stress scenarios.
New Section 2.3 of the Default Fund Methodology sets forth the new calculation of the stressed spread margin component of the STLOIM. Consistent with the changes made to the CDSClear Margin Framework, the new calculation of stressed spread margin would consider ATM implied volatility moves for options and the stressed spread margin would be calculated in two scenarios: (i) Historical scenarios covering credit spread moves and ATM implied volatility movements in combination, and (ii) theoretical scenarios covering credit spread movements and ATM implied volatility moves independently. For CDS, only scenarios covering spread moves would be considered.
New Section 2.4 of the Default Fund Methodology would set forth the stressed short charge component of the STLOIM calculation and would incorporate terms to account for the addition of CDS Options. The new stressed short charge calculation would follow the methodology of the short charge calculation as part of the total initial margin to take into account the non-linear nature of options, except that the number of default entities assumed is higher for stressed short charge than the number of defaults assumed for normal short charge. As under the existing Default Fund Methodology, the stressed short charge will cover the greater of (i) a “Global Stressed Short Charge,” which considers the entity having the largest exposure and the two highest exposures among the three entities most likely to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio, (ii) a “Financial Stressed Short Charge,” which considers the two entities having the largest exposure among senior financial entities and the highest exposure among the three senior financial entities most likely to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio, and (iii) a “High Yield Stressed Short Charge,” which considers the two entities having the largest exposure among entities in the high yield index family and the two highest exposures among the three entities among the high yield entities most likely to default in the Clearing Member's portfolio.
New Section 2.5 of the Default Fund Methodology would add a new stressed vega margin component to the STLOIM calculation. As noted above with respect to the CDSClear Margin Framework, vega margin is included with respect to CDS Options to address skew risk and volatility of volatility risk. The stressed vega margin component of the STLOIM calculation would be calculated in the same manner as the vega margin component of the CDSClear Margin Framework, but would use a higher quantile than the regular vega margin calculation.
New Section 2.6 of the Default Fund Methodology, entitled Exercise Management, would account for the impact of CDS Options which expire within the 5-day liquidation period. If the time to expiry with respect to an option in a defaulting member's portfolio is less than or equal to five days, LCH SA would consider the impact of option exercise in four permutations for each stress scenario to account for the default and extreme spread moves occurring before or after option expiry. LCH SA would then select the permutation generating the largest loss for any particular scenario. Section 2.6.1 of the Default Fund Methodology then sets forth the calculations for the exercise decision in respect of CDS Options and 2.6.2 describes the impact of the exercise
New Section 2.7 would set forth the P&L scenarios that are considered as part of the Default Fund Methodology. New Section 2.7.1 would set forth the stressed spread margin calculation with respect to specific products. In the case of CDS Options, the product is identified with the index family and series of the underlying index, such that the option P&L for each product can be added to the P&L for linear contracts and offsets may be made between the two groups. If the P&L at the product level is positive, a haircut is applied. Sections 2.7.2 then provides for a stressed short charge that is a component of the stressed initial margin calculation in Section 2.7.3. Under Section 2.7.4, the stressed initial margin calculation is then compared across historical scenarios, theoretical spread scenarios, and theoretical implied volatility scenarios.
Finally, the sections on Credit Quality Margin and Default Fund Additional Margin would be renumbered as new sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively, and would be updated to incorporate terms for CDS Options and to account for the imposition of vega margin in respect of CDS Options.
LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change in connection with the clearing of CDS Options is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act and the regulations thereunder, including the standards under Rule 17Ad-22.
LCH SA believes that the proposed changes to the CDSClear Margin Framework and the Default Fund Methodology satisfy the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2), (b)(3), (e)(1), (e)(4) and (e)(6).
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) requires a clearing agency to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions and to use risk-based models and parameters to set margin requirements.
As described above, LCH SA proposes to amend its margin framework to manage the risks associated with clearing CDS Options. Specifically, the proposed rule change amends the existing spread margin and short charge components of the total initial margin to take into account implied volatility in the calculation of the spread margin and short charge as well as updating interest rate risk margin, recovery rate risk margin and wrong-way risk margin components of total initial margin to incorporate CDS Options. In addition, the proposed rule change adds the new vega margin to account for the skew risk and volatility of volatility risk specific to CDS Options. These changes are designed to use a risk-based model to set margin requirements and use such margin requirements to limit LCH SA's credit exposures to participants in clearing CDS and/or CDS Options under normal market conditions, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2). LCH SA also believes that its risk-based margin methodology takes into account, and generates margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each of the CDS and CDS Options at the product and portfolio levels, appropriate to the relevant market it serves, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v). In addition, LCH SA believes that the margin calculation under the revised CDSClear Margin Framework would sufficiently account for the 5-day liquidation period for house account portfolio and 7-day liquidation period for client portfolio and therefore, is reasonably designed to cover LCH SA's potential future exposure to participants in the interval between the last margin collection and the close out of positions following a participant default, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iii). LCH SA also believes that the new pricing methodology with respect to CDS Options, based on widely accepted and used Bloomberg Model with appropriate adjustments, as supplemented by methodology for circumstances in which pricing data are not readily available, would generate reliable data set to enable LCH SA to calculate spread margin, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(iv).
Further, Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3) requires a clearing agency acting as a central counterparty for security-based swaps to establish policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain the cover two standard.
LCH SA also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1), which requires each covered clearing agency's policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions. As described above, the proposed rule change would streamline the description of margin methodology and default fund sizing methodology in CDSClear Margin Framework and Default Fund Methodology. LCH SA believes that these change would improve the organization and clarity of these policies and provide for a clear and transparent legal basis for LCH SA's margin requirements and default fund contributions, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).
For the reasons stated above, LCH SA believes that the proposed rule change with respect to CDSClear Margin Framework and Default Fund Methodology in connection with clearing of CDS Options are consistent with the requirements of prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and transactions, and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, in accordance with 17(A)(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
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.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2017-007 and should be submitted on or before September 11, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 2120, Trading Conduct and Order & Decorum on the Trading Floor, to enable the Exchange to enforce compliance with the Trading Conduct and Order & Decorum rules and amend Rule 12140 (Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations) to adopt violations and sanctions applicable to the Trading Floor. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 (i) adopt Rule 2120 to enable the Exchange to establish and enforce compliance with trading conduct and order and decorum on the trading floor; and (ii) amend Rule 12140 to adopt rule violations and sanctions applicable to the Trading Floor
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 2120 which governs trading conduct and order & decorum on the Trading Floor. The Exchange proposes that Rule 2120(a) states [sic] that upon the determination of an Options Exchange Official that a Floor Participant's conduct on the Trading Floor of the Exchange is such that it violates the provisions of (b) through (d) discussed below, impairs the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, or impairs public confidence in the operations of the Exchange, a Floor Participant of the Exchange may be fined pursuant to the Bylaws and Rules of the Exchange. This shall also apply to a Floor Participant's failure to adequately supervise an employee to ensure his compliance with this rule. A Floor Participant adversely affected by a determination made under this Section may obtain review thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 12000 Series. Fines imposed by an Options Exchange Official hereunder shall not preclude further disciplinary action by the Exchange pursuant to the Bylaws and Rules of the Exchange. The Exchange notes that this rule is based on the rules of NYSE Arca (“Arca”).
Next, the Exchange proposes Rule 2120(b) which governs the Standards of Dress and Conduct. The Exchange proposes that all Floor Participants are required to act in a manner consistent with a fair and orderly market and with the maintenance of public confidence in the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes appropriate standards pertaining to dress and conduct on the Trading Floor. Proposed Rule 2120(b)(1) details the Standards of Dress on the Trading Floor. Specifically, all persons on the Trading Floor, whether Floor Participants, employees of Floor Participants or visitors, shall at all times, whether prior to, during or after trading sessions, be dressed in a manner appropriate for business purposes and in accordance with good taste and professional standards. The term “good taste” shall be interpreted in a conservative manner. The Exchange may impose additional standards of dress or otherwise modify these standards of dress by means of a written policy that will be distributed to Floor Participants. The Exchange again notes that this provision is based on the rules of Arca.
Next, the Exchange proposes to adopt 2120(b)(2) which governs the Standard of Conduct on the Trading Floor. Specifically, all persons on the Trading Floor are required to conduct themselves in accordance with a seemly and professional standard of behavior. Further, no person while on the Trading Floor shall: (i) Engage in any act or practice that may be detrimental to the interest or welfare of the Exchange; or (ii) engage in any act or practice that may serve to disrupt or hinder the ordinary and efficient conduct of business; or (iii) engage in any act or practice that may serve to jeopardize the safety or welfare of any other individual; or (iv) act in a disorderly manner, which includes, but is not limited to, the use of abusive or indecorous language. Further, with regard to the Standards of Conduct provision, the Exchange further proposes that (i) the entry of food or drink may be permitted at the discretion of the Exchange and that alcoholic beverages may not be consumed on the Trading Floor at any time; (ii) Smoking
Next, the Exchange proposes Rule 2120(c)(1) which governs Trading Floor Badges, Admission By Badge Only. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that admission to the Trading Floor will be by badge only except in the case of certain designated Options Exchange Officials. While on the Trading Floor, all persons must at all times display appropriate badges. All Trading Floor employees seeking admission to the Trading Floor without a badge must be identified by the Options Exchange Official or representative thereof and supplied with a temporary badge. Non-Floor Participant employees of Floor Participants seeking admission without a badge must be identified by a Floor Participant and supplied with a temporary badge, and the Floor Participant may be subject to a fine in the event of continual failure of its employees to have appropriate badges. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule is based on the rules of Arca.
The Exchange then proposes Rule 2120(c)(2) which governs the Withdrawal of Trading Floor Badges. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that in the event that any Floor Participant's Letter of Guarantee is revoked by a Clearing Participant in accordance with the procedures stated in Rule 8070, such Floor Participant will not be entitled to enter into transactions on the Trading Floor until and unless a new Letter of Guarantee has been issued to such Floor Participant by a Clearing Participant. Accordingly, the Exchange will withdraw promptly the Trading Floor badge of any Floor Participant whose Letter of Guarantee has been properly revoked, and will retain such badge under its control until the Floor Participant is subsequently covered by a Letter of Guarantee. A Floor Participant whose badge has been withdrawn under this Rule may, so long as his Floor Participant status continues, gain access to the Trading Floor by means of his Floor Participant identification pass, but may not enter into any transactions thereon. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule is based on the rules of Arca.
Next, the Exchange proposes Rule 2120(d) which details the rules and regulations regarding visitors on the Trading Floor. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that (1) Visitors must be the invited guests of a Floor Participant or of certain designated members of the Exchange staff. Other non-Floor Participant employees are not permitted to invite visitors to the Trading Floor; (2) Visitors must be signed in by the inviting Floor Participant or staff personnel, and wear a visitors badge at all times when on the Trading Floor. The inviting Floor Participant will be responsible for the visitor's conduct on the Trading Floor and for the return of badges and must accompany such visitors at all times while they are on the Trading Floor; (3) Visitors may not enter the Crowd Area, block passageways, or otherwise disrupt or impair activity on the Trading Floor; (4) Persons associated with Floor Participants may visit the Floor only upon an invitation under the terms of subsection (1), above; (5) The Exchange may restrict visiting on the Trading Floor in any manner at any time when the Exchange deems that the presence of some or all visitors may interfere with orderly Trading Floor procedures. The Exchange notes that this rule is based on the rules of Arca.
Next, the Exchange proposes Rule 2120(e) which details Exclusion from the Trading Floor. Specifically, the Exchange proposes Rule 2120(e)(1) which states that an Options Exchange Official or an officer of the Exchange may exclude a Participant and any associated person of the Participant from the Trading Floor for breaches of regulations that relate to administration of order, decorum, health, safety and welfare on the Exchange that occurred on the Trading Floor or on the premises immediately adjacent to the Trading Floor. Specifically, Participants shall be excluded if they pose an immediate threat to the safety of persons or property, are seriously disrupting Exchange operations, or are in possession of a firearm. Participants so excluded may be excluded for a period of up to five business days. The Exchange notes that this rule is based on the rules of PHLX.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes Rule 2120(e)(2). Specifically, the Exchange proposes that if a Participant shall be excluded for a period exceeding forty-eight (48) hours, an expedited hearing (“Expedited Hearing”) will be held before the Chair of the Hearing Committee or his or her designee (“Expedited Hearing Officer”) within forty-eight (48) business hours after the Participant's exclusion from the Trading Floor. Written notice will be provided to the Participant of the date, time and place of the hearing. The Participant may be represented by counsel. The Expedited Hearing Officer shall conduct an Expedited Hearing. The Expedited Hearing Officer shall allow both the Participant or his or her representative and Exchange staff to present arguments. The Expedited Hearing Officer shall make a determination of whether to continue the Participant's exclusion from the Trading Floor for a period of up to five (5) business days. The determination shall be based on the severity of the threat posed to persons on the Trading Floor, the disruptiveness caused by the actor and the safety and welfare of persons on the Trading Floor.
Further, the Exchange proposes Rule 2120(e)(3) which states that exclusion from the Trading Floor may not be the exclusive sanction for breaches of this Rule and the regulations thereunder. In addition to exclusion, a Participant may also be subject to a fine or the matter may be referred to the Hearing Committee where it shall proceed in accordance with the Rule 12000 Series. The Exchange notes that this rule is based on the rules of PHLX.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes the procedure to be followed when a Participant is to be excluded from the Trading Floor. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that there is no further right of appeal. The determination that a Participant shall be excluded is final. There is no appeal from such determination. Further, the Exchange proposes that a report in appropriate form shall be made to the SEC. However, no report shall be made in a case where a clerical employee is excluded for a breach of regulations relating to order, decorum, health, safety and welfare or administration of the Exchange.
Exchange Rule 12140 provides that in lieu of commencing a disciplinary proceeding, the Exchange may, subject to the certain requirements set forth in the Rule, impose a fine, not to exceed $5,000, on any Options Participant, or person associated with or employed by an Options Participant, with respect to any Rule violation listed in Rule 12140(d) and proposed (e) discussed below. Any fine imposed pursuant to this Rule that (i) does not exceed $2,500 and (ii) is not contested, shall be reported on a periodic basis, except as may otherwise be required by Rule 19d-1 under the Act or by any other regulatory authority. Further, the Rule provides that any person against whom a fine is imposed under the Rule shall be served with a written statement setting forth (i) the Rule(s) allegedly violated; (ii) the act or omission constituting each such violation; (iii) the fine imposed for each violation; and (iv) the date by which such determination becomes final and such fine must be paid or contested, which date shall be not less than twenty-five (25) calendar days after the date of service of such written statement. The Exchange now proposes to reword the last sentence of Rule 12140(a). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to state that the Exchange will proceed under this Rule only for violations that are minor in nature. Any other violation will be addressed pursuant to Rule 12030 or 12040.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 12140 to adopt section (e) which details Trading Floor Violations Subject to Fines and their applicable sanctions.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt 12140(e)(1), General Responsibilities of Floor Brokers pursuant to BOX Rule 7570. Under this rule, a Floor Broker who, when handling an order, fails to use due diligence to cause the order to be executed at the best price or prices available to him in accordance with the Rules of the Exchange shall be subject to the following fines:
Next, the Exchange proposes to adopt 12140(e)(2), Failure to Properly Record Orders pursuant to BOX Rule 7580(e). Under this rule, any Floor Participant who fails to comply with the order format and system entry requirements on the Trading Floor shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange then proposes to adopt 12140(e)(3), Failure to Properly Execute a QOO Order, pursuant to BOX Rule 7600. Under this rule, any Floor Participant who fails to properly execute a QOO Order shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange proposes to adopt 12140(e)(4), Trading Conduct and Order & Decorum on the Trading Floor, pursuant to proposed Rule 2120(b)-(d) discussed above. Under this rule, violations of Rule 2120 related to Trading Floor Conduct and decorum shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange then proposes to adopt 12140(e)(5), Discretionary Transactions. Under this rule, violations of Rule 7590 regarding Discretionary Transactions shall be subject to the following fines:
Next, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 12140(e)(6), Floor Participant Not Available to Reconcile an Uncompared Trade pursuant to Rule 8530. Under this proposed rule, violations of Rule 8530 regarding the resolution of uncompared trades shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange then proposes to adopt Rule 12140(e)(7), Floor Participant Communications and Equipment, pursuant to Rule 7660. Under this proposed rule, violations of Rule 7660 regarding Floor Participant Communications and Equipment shall be subject to the following fines:
Next, the Exchange proposes Rule 12140(e)(8), Improper Vocalization of a Trade pursuant to Rule 100(b)(5). Under this proposed rule, violations of Rule 100(b)(5) regarding the requirements for public outcry shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange then proposes to adopt Rule 12140(e)(9), Floor Market Maker Failure to Comply with Quotation Requirements pursuant to Rule 8510(c)(2). Under this rule, violations of Rule 8510(c)(2) regarding a Floor Market Maker's Obligations of Continuous Open Outcry Quoting shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange proposes Rule 12140(e)(10), Floor Market Maker Quote Spread Parameters pursuant to Rule 8510(d)(1). Under this proposed rule, violations of Rule 8510(d)(1) regarding legal bid/ask differential requirements on the Trading Floor shall be subject to the following fines:
Next, the Exchange proposes Rule 12140(e)(11), Floor Broker Failure to Honor the Priority of Bids and Offers pursuant to Rule 7610(d). Under this proposed rule, violations of Rule 7610(d) regarding a Floor Broker's obligations in determining Time Priority Sequence shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange then proposes Rule 12140(e)(12), Floor Broker Failure to Identify a Broker Dealer Order, pursuant to Rule IM-7580-2. Under this proposed rule, violations of Rule IM-7580-2 regarding a Floor Broker's responsibility to identify its orders shall be subject to the following fines:
The Exchange notes that the proposed violations listed above are substantially similar to the rules of NYSE Arca's Minor Rule Plan regarding violations and sanctions applicable to a physical trading floor.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 2120, Trading Conduct and Order and Decorum on the Trading Floor, imposes reasonable restrictions and requirements that are designed to further the objectives of the Act. Specifically, the proposed rules are designed to maintain order on the Trading Floor and apply to all Floor Participants. Additionally, these rules are based on those of competing options exchanges that also have trading floors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 12140 are consistent with and further the
The Exchange believes that the preset fines for Trading Floor violations are appropriate to deter Floor Participants from violating requirements and restrictions which are necessary for the orderly operation of the Trading Floor. The fines should create further deterrents for certain activity on the Trading Floor which disrupts the orderly operation of the Trading Floor. Further, the minor rule plan assists the regulatory staff in protecting its market to the benefit of the public. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because Rule 12140 strengthens the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as an SRO in cases where full disciplinary proceedings may be unsuitable in view of the minor nature of the particular violation. Additionally, these rules are based on those of a competing options exchange [sic] that also has a trading floor.
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. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule changes being proposed are similar to the rules of Arca and PHLX.
As such, 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 has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative upon filing. The Exchange has stated that it is requesting this waiver because the disciplinary rules contained in this proposed rule change need to be in place for the Exchange to operate its recently approved Trading Floor and waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to commence operation of the Trading Floor in a timely manner while ensuring that proper disciplinary rules are in place. The Exchange explained that the proposed rules are similar to the rules of other Exchanges and that it provided Participants on the Exchange with notice of the disciplinary rules contained in the proposed rule change via regulatory circular. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because this waiver will enable the Exchange to begin operating its Trading Floor with trading conduct and order and decorum rules in place and with a Minor Rule Violation Plan that incorporates violations concerning activities related to the Trading Floor. The Commission further notes that the proposed rules are based on the rules of other exchanges with trading floors. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 Brent J. Fields, 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c) sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 11, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: c/o Rachael Zufall, Nuveen, LLC, 8500 Andrew Carnegie Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28262.
Asaf Barouk, Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 551-4029, or Kaitlin Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or trade fails.
2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Among others, an Adviser, through a designated committee, would administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its duties under the investment management agreements with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.
4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative costs or fees to the Funds.
5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section 18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility (because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because the open-end Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1) that all borrowings of the open-end Fund, including combined interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the participation of the registered investment company in a joint enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of the other participants.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes a proposal to amend Supplementary Material .14 of Rule 504, entitled “Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading.”
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
(a)-(h) No change.
.01-.13 No change.
.14 Notwithstanding 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”)
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 Rule 504 by modifying the strike setting regime for the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (“IVV”) options. 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 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 ETP underlying, SPY and IVV options are listed in the same manner as equity options under the Rules.
IVV options currently trade at $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereas IVV options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. Further, pursuant to Supplementary Material .12 of Rule 504, the Exchange may open for trading Short Term Option Series on the Short Term Option Opening Date that expire on the Short Term Option Expiration Date at strike price intervals of (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $100, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $100 and $150 for all option classes that participate in the Short Term Options Series Program; (ii) $0.50 for option classes that trade in one dollar increments and are in the Short Term Option Series Program; or (iii) $2.50 or greater where the strike price is above $150.
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 wide range of S&P 500 Index-based options 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 Supplementary Material .14 of Rule 504 to allow IVV options to trade in $1 increments above a strike price of $200. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .14 of Rule 504 to state that the interval between strike prices of series of options on Units of IVV 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 IVV 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.
Pursuant to the strike price intervals established pursuant to Rule 504(h), 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 pursuant to 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 options 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 will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change.
In addition, the Exchange represents that it does not believe that this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY, which is an ETF that is identical in all material respects to the IVV ETF.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with 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, IVV options currently trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereas these options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on IVV options 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 IVV options intervals increase by 500%. This proposal remedies the 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 a prior rule change.
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 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,
No written comments were either solicited or 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 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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (i) amend Rule 925 to create a limited exception to the Exchange's existing procedures to designate an Inactive Nominee as an effective permit holder and (ii) make a non-substantive change to its Pricing Schedule related to the fees assessed to Inactive Nominees.
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 (i) amend Rule 925 to create a limited exception to the Exchange's existing procedures to designate an Inactive Nominee
Today, the Exchange allows members on the Exchange's trading floor to designate an “Inactive Nominee” pursuant to Rule 925. Rule 925(i) requires, among other criteria, that an individual must be approved as eligible to hold a permit in accordance with the Exchange's By-Laws and Rules in order to be eligible for Inactive Nominee status. Additionally, the member organization with whom an Inactive Nominee is affiliated must pay an Inactive Nominee Fee for the privilege of maintaining the Inactive Nominee status.
When a member organization desires to designate an Inactive Nominee as an effective permit holder, Rule 925(ii)(a) states that the member organization is required to notify the Exchange's
The Exchange now proposes to create a limited exception to the Exchange's existing procedures to designate an Inactive Nominee as an effective permit holder. In particular, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new provision at Rule 925(ii)(b) to permit member organizations to designate an Inactive Nominee intra-day in the event of an unforeseen emergency,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and would serve to enhance the application of Rule 925 by allowing members to quickly obtain coverage on the trading floor in limited cases where an unforeseen emergency arises intra-day, therefore making it impossible for a member to notify the Membership Department within the required time period under the current Rule. While these extraordinary circumstances rarely arise, the proposed rule change would give the CRO (or his/her designee in the CRO's absence) the flexibility to approve the intra-day designation so that members are not adversely affected by unforeseen factors that prevented them from notifying the Exchange within the allotted time period. Because each individual on the floor is required to have a permit in order to trade, such emergencies could especially affect members who have small propriety businesses on the Exchange trading floor and therefore rely on these Inactive Nominees as their only substitutes. Similarly, since the time the Exchange adopted rules establishing the Inactive Nominee,
The Exchange is also proposing a non-substantive amendment to its Pricing Schedule at Section VI.A relating to the fees assessed to Inactive Nominees. In particular, Section VI.A of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule states that an Inactive Nominee is also assessed the Trading Floor Personnel Registration Fee.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will allow members additional flexibility in obtaining coverage on the trading floor. Inactive Nominees are essentially a pool of eligible individuals who can substitute for traders on the Exchange's floor. By allowing members flexibility in obtaining coverage intra-day in limited circumstances as described above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would assist in facilitating the smooth functioning of its market operations, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would allow members to have a prepared roster of substitute traders who are available even in unforeseen emergencies, which should help to facilitate transactions in securities and remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market, also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
Finally, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to make the non-substantive change in its Pricing Schedule to replace the obsolete reference to “Trading Floor Personnel Registration Fee” with “Clerk Fee” so that members and investors have a clear and accurate understanding of the Exchange's rules.
Because the purpose of the proposal is to provide members with additional flexibility to obtain coverage intra-day in limited circumstances and to make a non-substantive change as discussed
No written comments were either solicited or 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 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)(iii) 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 21.2, Days and Hours of Business.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 21.2 to clarify the trading hours for options on fund shares (“ETF's”) and exchange-traded notes (“ETNs”). Specifically, the Exchange seeks to amend Rule 21.2 to provide that options on ETF's and ETNs (collectively exchange-traded products or “ETPs”) may be traded on the Exchange until 3:15 p.m. (CT) each business day. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule is based on C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (“C2”) Rule 6.1 and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) Rule 901NY Commentary .02.
Currently, Rule 21.2 provides that all options on ETPs will be traded on the Exchange until 3:15 p.m. (CT); however, industry practice and the Exchange's current practice allow the vast majority of options on ETPs to be traded until 3:00 p.m. (CT), while allowing certain options on ETPs to trade until 3:15 p.m. (CT).
The Exchange 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. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
In particular, the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest by reducing potential confusing regarding BZX's trading hours for options on ETPs and aligning BZX's Rules regarding trading orders for options on ETPs with industry practice. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule is based on C2 Rule 6.1 and NYSE MKT Rule 901NY Commentary .02.
BZX 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. The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition as the proposed rule change will align BZX's Rules regarding trading orders for options on ETPs with industry practice. In addition, the proposed rule change does not modify the construct for trading hours but simply identifies the products that may close at 3:00 p.m. (CT) or 3:15 p.m. (CT), which is consistent with the industry.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, 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: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) 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.
On June 19, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Maori Portraits: Gottfried Lindauer's New Zealand,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, de Young Museum, San Francisco, California, from on or about September 9, 2017, until on or about April 1, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Beyond Impressionism—Paris, Fin-de-Siècle: The Art of Signac, Redon, Toulouse-Lautrec and their Contemporaries,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Columbus Museum of Art, Columbus, Ohio, from on or about October 20, 2017, until on or about January 21, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) and Central Railroad Company of Indianapolis (CERA) (collectively, Applicants), have jointly filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
Applicants have certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (3) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to these exemptions, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, these exemptions will be effective on September 20, 2017, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to William A. Mullins, Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void ab initio.
Applicants have filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by August 25, 2017. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR's filing of a notice of consummation by August 21, 2018, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on August 23, 2017, in the TVA West Tower Auditorium, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee. The public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a
Open.
For more information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. People who plan to attend the meeting and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Web Portal forms are used to collect aeronautical information, detailing the physical description and operational status of all components of the National Airspace System (NAS).
Written comments should be submitted by September 20, 2017.
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/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall by email at:
Under Part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on April 25, 2017, the Minnesota Transportation Museum (MTM) requested renewal of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 232,
Specifically, MTM requests relief from part 232, Appendix B, § 232.17(b)(2) for passenger car maintenance requirements. MTM is a non-profit corporation that operates historic and educational excursion trains as the Osceola and St. Croix Valley Railway between Dresser, Wisconsin and Withrow, Minnesota, a distance of 25 miles, over Canadian National track. Operation of this train is from mid-April to the end of October primarily on weekends with occasional mid-week special event trains for approximately 70 operating days. MTM currently operates six coaches equipped with either LN, UC or D-22 type brakes that require a clean, oil, test, and stencil (COT&S) servicing, as prescribed in the Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices of the Association of American Railroads, S-4045, Passenger Equipment Maintenance Requirements, last published in 2013.
MTM requests a renewal of relief for the COT&S intervals for the coaches with the UC and LN type brake valves. MTM asserts that it has been performing the COT&S servicing at 24-month intervals instead of the 15-month intervals prescribed in part 232,
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 October 5, 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.). Under 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 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on July 21, 2017, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requesting reconsideration of a prior FRA decision granting conditional relief from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0116.
In a May 30, 2017 decision, the FRA's Railroad Safety Board (Board) conditionally approved CSXT's petition for a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 236.60,
As CSXT explains in its request for reconsideration, under the requirements of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432, Oct. 16, 2008), and the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-73, 129 Stat. 576, 582, Oct. 29, 2015), all required PTC hardware must be installed on or before December 31, 2018. CSXT has determined that, to date, there are approximately 250 switches utilizing shunt only protection on subdivisions where PTC has been installed or must be installed by December 31, 2018. CSXT states that excluding all PTC territory and tracks leading to PTC territory from the waiver would require it to modify these 250 switches by adding track circuit breaks to each location on or before December 31, 2018. CSXT asserts that while it remains on track to meet its PTC hardware installation requirement, also requiring these shunt-only protected switches to be modified puts CSXT's ability to meet this deadline into serious jeopardy, because it would add a significant amount of unplanned work to Engineering Department employees.
As an alternative to this requirement to modify shunt only protected switches in PTC territory, CSXT requests that the Board modify the waiver to allow CSXT to grandfather the current 250 shunt-only protected switches located in PTC territory or on tracks leading to PTC territory into this waiver.
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 October 5, 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.). Under 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
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for projects in Norwalk, Connecticut and Indianapolis, Indiana. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject projects and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before January 18, 2018.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Alan Tabachnick, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-8541. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the projects to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the projects. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
1.
2.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0148. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel REFLECTION is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0148 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0146. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MONI is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0146 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0144. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LELANTA is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0144 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0140. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SIRIUS is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0140 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0147. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SUMMER WIND is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0147 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0139. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SAGAMORE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0139 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0142. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel E JEAN is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0142 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0141. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel DESTINY is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0141 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0150. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel REEL VIKING is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0150 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before September 20, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0145. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LADY KATH is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0145 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
| 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 |