Page Range | 39655-39951 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 39780 - Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) Information To Be Verified for the 2018-2019 Award Year | |
82 FR 39915 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 39915 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 39916 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 39888 - Arkansas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 39894 - Missouri; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 39785 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
82 FR 39786 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 39932 - Notifications to Congress of Proposed Export Licenses | |
82 FR 39894 - Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 39893 - New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39889 - Michigan; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39891 - North Dakota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39882 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
82 FR 39888 - Oregon; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39918 - Submission for Review: Combined Federal Campaign Annuitant Pledge Form, OPM Form 1654-B | |
82 FR 39892 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 39894 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
82 FR 39898 - Technical Mapping Advisory Council | |
82 FR 39659 - Educational Meeting on the Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived From Such Fish Final Rule Implementation | |
82 FR 39942 - Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties at the Melbourne International Airport, Melbourne, FL | |
82 FR 39949 - Final Priorities for Amendment Cycle | |
82 FR 39880 - Navigation Safety Advisory Council; Vacancies | |
82 FR 39665 - Safety Zones; Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District | |
82 FR 39890 - Tennessee; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 39898 - Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39890 - New York; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39783 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 39914 - Stainless Steel Flanges From China and India; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
82 FR 39889 - Wyoming; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39891 - Nebraska; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 39887 - Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
82 FR 39712 - Definition of “Waters of the United States”-Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules; Extension of Comment Period | |
82 FR 39946 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
82 FR 39785 - Former Douglas Battery Site, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina; Notice of Settlement | |
82 FR 39777 - Intent To Grant a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for the Transfer and Use of a Unique Infrared Laser to University of Central Florida | |
82 FR 39797 - Secretarial Review and Publication of the National Quality Forum Report of 2016 Activities to Congress and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services | |
82 FR 39780 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Extension | |
82 FR 39918 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
82 FR 39715 - Connect2HealthFCC Task Force Announces Upcoming Virtual Listening Sessions on Broadband Health Divide | |
82 FR 39716 - Radio Broadcasting Services; Cora, Wyoming | |
82 FR 39919 - New Postal Products | |
82 FR 39784 - Laramie River DevCo LP; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver | |
82 FR 39784 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 39790 - Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
82 FR 39903 - Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NDM 94112, North Dakota | |
82 FR 39664 - Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Neurological Disorders; Correction | |
82 FR 39949 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects | |
82 FR 39716 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2017-18 Season | |
82 FR 39945 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
82 FR 39943 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
82 FR 39684 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Air Force 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron Conducting Long Range Strike Weapons System Evaluation Program at the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii | |
82 FR 39732 - Notification of Receipt of a Petition To Ban Imports of All Fish and Fish Products From Mexico That Do Not Satisfy the Marine Mammal Protection Act Provisions | |
82 FR 39940 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Teotihuacan: City of Water, City of Fire” Exhibition | |
82 FR 39950 - Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 39758 - Huron-Manistee Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 39777 - Credit Union Advisory Council Meeting | |
82 FR 39749 - Notice of Meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development | |
82 FR 39901 - U.S. Endangered Species; Recovery Permit Applications | |
82 FR 39787 - Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 39665 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Indian River, Titusville, FL | |
82 FR 39917 - Information Collection: Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data Collection | |
82 FR 39940 - Determination Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act | |
82 FR 39711 - Juice Products Association; Filing of Food Additive Petition; Correction | |
82 FR 39793 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Submission of Petitions: Food Additive, Color Additive (Including Labeling), Submission of Information to a Master File in Support of Petitions; and Electronic Submission Using Food and Drug Administration Form 3503 | |
82 FR 39792 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Devices; Exception From General Requirements for Informed Consent | |
82 FR 39795 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program | |
82 FR 39908 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
82 FR 39788 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 39759 - Foreign-Trade Zone 38-Spartanburg County, South Carolina; Application for Expansion of Subzone 38A; BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC; Duncan, South Carolina | |
82 FR 39759 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 277-Western Maricopa County, Arizona; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; CornellCookson, Inc. (Rolling Steel Doors); Goodyear, Arizona | |
82 FR 39759 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 167-Brown County, Wisconsin; Authorization of Production Activity; Polaris Industries, Inc.; (Spark-Ignition Internal Combustion Engines); Osceola, Wisconsin | |
82 FR 39776 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species | |
82 FR 39881 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 39879 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 39749 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 39951 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Claim, Authorization & Invoice for Prosthetic Items & Services | |
82 FR 39915 - Appointment of Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
82 FR 39923 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to IQ Real Return ETF Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation M | |
82 FR 39929 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Implementation Date for Certain Changes to the NYSE Arca Rule 5 and Rule 8 Series | |
82 FR 39778 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 39925 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Floor Requirements | |
82 FR 39921 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule | |
82 FR 39930 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 21.2, Days and Hours of Business | |
82 FR 39920 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Implementation Date for Certain Changes to the Rule 5700 Series and Rule 5810 | |
82 FR 39790 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 39786 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Reimbursement for Use of Transportation Network Companies or Innovative Mobility Technology Companies While on Official Travel | |
82 FR 39899 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request; Extension of an Information Collection | |
82 FR 39915 - Identifying and Reporting Human Performance Incidents | |
82 FR 39786 - Maximum Per Diem Reimbursement Rates for the Continental United States (CONUS) | |
82 FR 39941 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Damian Martin | |
82 FR 39660 - Incorporation by Reference of ICAO Annex 2; Removal of Outdated North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications | |
82 FR 39702 - Regulatory Reform Agenda | |
82 FR 39941 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American Airlines, Inc. | |
82 FR 39762 - Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act List of Foreign Fisheries | |
82 FR 39942 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; KaiserAir, Inc. | |
82 FR 39878 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 39875 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 39877 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 39875 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 39876 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 39877 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Meetings | |
82 FR 39875 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 39877 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 39876 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 39876 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 39875 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 39878 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 39900 - Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Public Collection of Information: Exercise Information System | |
82 FR 39777 - Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 39911 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and Nevada State Museum, Carson City, NV | |
82 FR 39907 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT | |
82 FR 39904 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
82 FR 39909 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN | |
82 FR 39903 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR | |
82 FR 39906 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR | |
82 FR 39750 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Summer Meals Study | |
82 FR 39658 - United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Onions | |
82 FR 39655 - U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Walnuts and Walnuts in the Shell | |
82 FR 39683 - Amendment of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band | |
82 FR 39733 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 17B | |
82 FR 39760 - 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 39712 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry: Alternative Monitoring Method | |
82 FR 39671 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry: Alternative Monitoring Method | |
82 FR 39779 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Northwest Training and Testing | |
82 FR 39671 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia: Permit Exemptions and Definitions; Withdrawal | |
82 FR 39940 - Renewal of International Security Advisory Board Charter | |
82 FR 39743 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program | |
82 FR 39947 - Pilot Program for Nonprofit Cooperative Procurements | |
82 FR 39735 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2018 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season | |
82 FR 39757 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Comment Requested-Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) Collection Recipe Submission and Review Forms | |
82 FR 39673 - Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program | |
82 FR 39883 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit 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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule revises the U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Walnuts and the U.S. Standards for Grades of Walnuts in the Shell issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1946. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending the color requirements to include red-colored walnuts. In addition, AMS is removing the “Unclassified” section. These revisions will modernize the standards to more accurately represent today's marketing practices and to meet growing consumer demand by providing greater marketing flexibility.
Effective September 21, 2017.
David G. Horner, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, USDA/AMS Specialty Crops Program, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, VA 22406; telephone (540) 361-1120; fax (540) 361-1199; or email
The changes in these two sets of standards will permit grade certification of red-colored walnut varieties. These revisions also affect the grade requirements under the marketing order, 7 CFR part 984, issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601-674) and applicable imports.
This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). 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 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impacts of the revisions to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Walnuts and the U.S. Standards for Grades of Walnuts in the Shell. The purpose of the RFA is to structure regulatory actions so small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Accordingly, AMS has prepared the following final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The current U.S. walnut standards have four color classifications: Extra Light, Light, Light Amber, and Amber. Product that does not meet these color standards cannot be certified to a U.S. grade. AMS is revising these standards to include a new classification for red-colored walnuts. In addition, AMS is eliminating the “Unclassified” section. These revisions modernize the current grading standards by allowing the industry to meet the growing consumer demand for red-colored walnuts and by promoting better market information and greater marketing flexibility within the industry.
The process of grading improves the functioning of a commodity market. Assigning different prices to different product characteristics and levels of quality increases opportunities for profitable trade. Including red-colored varieties to the walnut grading standards will facilitate additional market opportunities for walnut producers and other participants in the supply chain. The revision will result in a minor change only to the color requirements of the current standards. AMS anticipates that there will be little or no additional cost to implement this revision. This change applies uniformly to all market participants, and will not result in disproportionate additional costs being borne by small walnut producers or other small businesses.
To determine the proportion of walnut producers that would be considered small, AMS conducted the following analysis. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small agricultural producers as those with annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.601).
AMS used crop value per acre to determine the number of bearing acres required to generate annual sales of $750,000 or more, and came to 136 bearing acres. To reach this number, AMS divided the total crop value measured in dollars by the total utilized production measured in tons. Using annual National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data for the years 2010 to 2014, the 5-year average crop value
The NASS Agricultural Census is conducted every 5 years and in 2012 showed that 87 percent of walnut farming operations in the U.S. fell into its Census category of “under 100 bearing acres” of walnuts. AMS estimates that the proportion of walnut growers that qualify as small businesses under the SBA definition is likely to be close to 90 percent, given the probable exclusion in the “under 100 bearing acres” Census category of walnut producers with bearing acreage between 100 and 136. These small growers will not be disproportionately affected by the final rule as all changes to the standards will be applied uniformly to all market participants.
In August 2015, the Grades and Standards Committee of the California Walnut Board and Commission voted unanimously to revise the U.S. walnut standards to include non-amber cultivars such as red-colored varieties. More than 99 percent of U.S. walnuts are produced in California. Addition of an expanded color certification grade will encourage greater revenue to flow into the industry due to greater marketing opportunities for red-colored nuts. Revising the current grading standards to include red walnuts will come at a minimal cost to the industry. The benefits of modernized grading standards, which include better market information and greater marketing flexibility, exceed the minor costs to market participants of implementing this revision to the U.S. standards for walnuts.
The current U.S. walnut standards only permit the following four colors: Extra Light, Light, Light Amber, and Amber. However, consumer demand is growing for red walnuts in the United States. In China, the Livermore variety (a red-colored walnut) is very desirable. U.S. growers and companies expect sales to continue rising domestically and in China, especially once red walnuts are permitted grade certification.
To address anticipated consumer needs, the Grades and Standards Committee of the California Walnut Board and Commission voted unanimously in August 2015 to revise the U.S. walnut standards to include non-amber cultivars, beginning with the Livermore variety. Later, the California Walnut Board and Commission sent an official letter to the AMS Administrator formally requesting the addition of red-colored varieties.
On November 25, 2016, AMS published a Proposed Rule in the
Six commenters supported the changes. One supporter was a trade association representing nearly 4,000 family farms, nearly 60,000 jobs, and a $1.7 billion walnut industry. The other supporting commenters were from the general public. Two of the supporting individuals asked for clarification on the following:
• Was there a health hazard in the past, preventing red walnuts from being certified to a U.S. grade? No. When the USDA Walnut Color Chart was developed in 1967, walnuts came in light to dark amber colors. Since then, red varieties of walnuts (
• Are red walnuts a type of English walnut? Yes. Red walnuts, such as the Livermore variety, are a
• What would prevent the industry from marketing dyed walnuts as true red walnuts? Marketing Order 984, which regulates walnuts grown in California, prohibits walnuts from being modified in any form (over 99 percent of U.S. walnuts are grown in California). In addition, the U.S. grade standards have no provision for artificial coloring and, therefore, walnuts could not be certified to grade if color was added.
Two commenters, representing the general public, opposed the changes. One believed red walnuts should be free from regulations and the other believed it would affect the market negatively. The purpose of U.S. grade standards is to facilitate the marketing of agriculture in the United States and around the world. These revisions come at the request of the U.S. walnut industry. In addition, AMS believes these revisions would increase supply of red walnuts. Marketing Order 984 requires walnuts grown in California to be certified to a U.S. grade. Once red walnuts can be grade certified, they will become more available to domestic and global consumers.
Based on the above information gathered, AMS is making the following revisions in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Walnuts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition, AMS is making the following revisions in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Walnuts in the Shell:
•
•
•
•
The U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Walnuts and the U.S. Standards for Grades of Walnuts in the Shell will be effective 30 days after publication of this rule in the
Food grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vegetables.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 51 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
(a) Color shall be specified in connection with this grade in terms of “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” from the USDA Walnut Color Chart or in terms of “red” color. The color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart shall not apply to “red” color. Furthermore, “red” color shall not be mixed with “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” colors. (See § 51.2281 and § 51.2282.)
(a) Color of walnuts based on the USDA Walnut Color Chart shall be not darker than the “amber” classification. There are no color requirements for “red” color. Color may be specified in connection with the grade in terms of one of the color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart or “red” color. “Red” color shall not be mixed with “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” colors. (See § 51.2281 and § 51.2282.)
The following classifications are provided to describe the color of any lot:
(a) “Extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” and “amber:” The portions of kernels in the lot shall be not darker than the darkest color permitted in the specified classification as shown on the USDA Walnut Color Chart.
(b) “Red:” There are no color requirements.
The term “off color” is not a color classification, but shall be applied to any lot which fails to meet the requirements of the “amber” classification when applying the color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart. Off color shall not be used for “red” color.
(a) Kernel color shall be specified in connection with this grade in terms of “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” from the USDA Walnut Color Chart or in terms of “red” color. The color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart shall not apply to “red” color. Furthermore, “red” color shall not be mixed with “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” colors. When kernel color is based on the color classifications from the USDA Walnut Color Chart, at least 70 percent, by count, of the walnuts have kernels which are not darker than “light amber,” and which are free from grade defects:
(a) Kernel color shall be specified in connection with this grade in terms of “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” from the USDA Walnut Color Chart or in terms of “red” color. The color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart shall not apply to “red” color. Furthermore, “red” color shall not be mixed with “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” colors. When kernel color is based on the color classifications from the USDA Walnut Color Chart, at least 60 percent, by count, of the walnuts have kernels which are not darker than “light amber,” and which are free from grade defects. Higher percentages of nuts with kernels not darker than “light amber” which are free from grade defects, and/or percentages with kernels not darker than “light” which are free from grade defects, may be specified in accordance with the facts. (See § 51.2954.)
(a) Kernel color may be specified in connection with this grade in terms of “light amber” or “light” from the USDA Walnut Color Chart or in terms of “red” color. The color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart shall not apply to “red” color. Furthermore, “red” color shall not be mixed with “extra light,” “light,” “light amber,” or “amber” colors. When kernel color is based on the color classifications from the USDA Walnut Color Chart, there is no requirement in this grade for the percentage of walnuts having kernels which are “light amber” or “light.” However, the percentage, by count, of nuts with kernels not darker than “light amber” which are free from grade defects and/or the percentage with kernels not darker than “light” which are free from grade defects, may be specified in accordance with the facts. (See § 51.2954.)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final notification.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is establishing voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Onions. The grade standards provide a common language for trade, a means of measuring value in the marketing of frozen onions, and guidance on the effective use of frozen onions.
Contact Brian E. Griffin, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Specialty Crops Inspection Division, Specialty Crops Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1536, South Building; STOP 0240, Washington, DC 20250; telephone (202) 720-5021; fax (202) 690-1527; or, email
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (Act) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official grade standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables unrelated to Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program, and are available at
AMS is establishing the U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Onions using the procedures in part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).
AMS asked the petitioner for various styles of samples in order to determine grades of frozen onions. AMS distributed several discussion drafts of proposed standards to AFFI, instituted changes to the drafts once agreement was reached, then published several
In the most recent comments published November 23, 2016, in 81 FR 84506, and extended comment period published March 3, 2017, in 82 FR 12424, AMS received 19 comments. All comments received were from the general public. Three commenters stated they did not feel there was a need for Government grades of frozen onions. AMS developed the proposed U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Onions at the request of, and in cooperation with, the frozen food industry. The U.S.
These standards establish the grade levels “A,” “B,” and “Substandard,” as well as Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) tolerances and acceptance numbers for each quality factor as defined for each grade level.
AMS used the standard format for U.S. standards for grades using “individual attributes.” Specifically, the grade standards provide tolerance limits for defects; acceptance numbers of allowable defects with single letter grade designation based on a specified number or weight of sample units; a product description for frozen onions; and, style designations for “whole,” “strips,” “diced,” and “other” styles. The standard also defines quality factors, AQLs, and tolerances for defects in frozen onions, and determines sample unit sizes for this commodity. The grade of a sample unit of frozen onions will be ascertained considering the factors of varietal characteristics, color, flavor and odor, appearance, absence of grit or dirt, defects, and character.
The official grade of a lot of frozen onions covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Products Thereof, and Certain Other Processed Food Products (7 CFR part 52 through 52.83).
The new U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Onions provide a common language for trade and reflect the current marketing of frozen onions. The standards will be effective 30 days after the date of publication in the
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notification of educational meeting.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing an educational meeting to discuss the enforcement and implementation of the Final Rule, “Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish.” Fish of the order Siluriformes include fish of several families, including catfish (fish of the family Ictaluridae), basa, tra, and swai (fish of the family Pangasiidae), and clarias (fish of the Clariidae family). FSIS will present information on the upcoming full implementation of the regulatory requirements at official domestic establishments that process Siluriformes fish and fish products, as well as information on entry procedures and reinspection at official import inspection establishments. FSIS is particularly interested in soliciting participation from representatives from domestic wild-caught operations that process Siluriformes fish and fish products.
The primary objectives of the meeting are to provide updated information to stakeholders and to encourage dialogue between FSIS and the Siluriformes fish industry. Affected industry and interested individuals, organizations, and other stakeholders are invited to participate in the meeting.
The meeting will be held in Webster, FL on Friday, August 25, 2017; 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. ET, at the Florida Bass Conservation Center, 3583 CR 788, in Webster, FL. For directions and parking instructions, please visit:
Evelyn Arce, Outreach and Partnership Division, Office of Outreach, Employee Education and Training, FSIS, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mail Stop 3778, Washington, DC 20250; Telephone: (202) 418-8903; Fax: (202) 690-6519; Email:
Questions regarding the mandatory inspection of fish of the order Siluriformes and products derived from such fish may be directed to
Further information on these meetings will be posted on FSIS Web site at:
The final rule may be accessed from the FSIS Web site at:
On December 2, 2015, FSIS published the final rule to establish a mandatory inspection program for fish of the order Siluriformes and products derived from these fish (80 FR 75590). The final rule and other resources and information on Siluriformes fish can be found on the FSIS “Inspection Program for Siluriformes Fish, Including Catfish” Web page:
The final rule was effective March 1, 2016; however, the Agency provided an 18-month transitional period until September 1, 2017, to give domestic establishments time to prepare and comply with the final regulations. The transitional period also provided foreign countries with time to submit the documentation necessary to continue exporting Siluriformes fish and fish products to the United States and to show that they have equivalent inspection systems.
FSIS began inspecting domestic establishments on March 1, 2016, and began selecting imported Siluriformes fish shipments for reinspection on April 15, 2016. During the transitional period, FSIS inspection personnel have exercised broad discretion in enforcing the regulatory requirements, focusing primarily on preventing adulterated or misbranded Siluriformes fish and fish products from entering commerce.
On August 2, 2017, to abide with direction from Congress, FSIS began reinspecting all imported Siluriformes fish and fish products. Specifically, the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31 Stat. 135, enacted May 5, 2017, directed FSIS to
FSIS held a series of domestic and import educational meetings when the final rule initially published in December 2015. More recently, in June and July 2017, FSIS held additional educational meetings in Richmond, VA, and Baltimore, MD. Another educational meeting is scheduled for August 24, 2017, in Memphis, TN. FSIS has gained significant insight into the domestic and importing Siluriformes fish industries during the transitional period.
FSIS is announcing this educational meeting to provide updates regarding full implementation of the regulatory requirements and to exchange information with operations that process wild-caught Siluriformes fish and fish products, and thus encourages representatives and parties involved in this industry to attend the educational meetings. The Agency is particularly interested in gaining additional insight into how the wild-caught Siluriformes fish arrive at processing facilities, where the wild-caught Siluriformes fish are sourced, daily production volume information for these facilities, and where the final Siluriformes fish and fish products are being sold or distributed after processing.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email: Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, Fax: (202) 690-7442, Email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule better aligns FAA regulations regarding the North Atlantic (NAT) Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications (MNPS) with the relevant International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. The ICAO NAT Region is transitioning from the decades-old MNPS navigation specification to a more modern, Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) specification. This rule also incorporates by reference the current version of Annex 2 (“Rules of the Air”) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the “Chicago Convention”), hereinafter referred to as “ICAO Annex 2,” in the FAA's regulations.
This regulation is effective October 23, 2017. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 23, 2017.
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How To Obtain Additional Information” in the
Kevin C. Kelley, Flight Technologies Division, Flight Standards Service, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8854; email
The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I,
This rule is promulgated under the authority described in title 49, subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
This rule is also promulgated pursuant to title 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1) and (2), which charge the FAA with issuing regulations: (1) To ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace; and (2) to govern the flight of aircraft for purposes of navigating, protecting and identifying aircraft, and protecting individuals and property on the ground.
This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority under the statutes cited above, because it amends 14 CFR 91.703, 91.705, 91.905, and 91.1027 and Appendices C and G to part 91, to better align FAA regulations with changes to international standards for operations in airspace over the high seas. This rule also incorporates by reference the current version of ICAO Annex 2 in FAA regulations.
On September 29, 2016, the FAA published an NPRM (81 FR 66877) in which it proposed several amendments to part 91 to improve the alignment between FAA regulations and ICAO standards relevant to operations over the North Atlantic and in other airspace over the high seas. As a result of ICAO renaming the NAT MNPS airspace as the NAT High Level Airspace (NAT HLA) and requiring PBN specifications to operate in NAT HLA by January 2020, the references to NAT MNPS in FAA regulations are outdated. Accordingly, the FAA proposed to remove all instances of MNPS in 14 CFR part 91.
In the NPRM, the FAA also stated that the prescriptive references to navigational specifications in part 91 were not necessary, since operators are required to comply with ICAO Annex 2, when operating over the high seas. Article 12 of the Chicago Convention states, in pertinent part, “Over the high seas, the rules in force [with respect to the flight and maneuver of aircraft] shall be those established under this Convention.” The Foreword to ICAO Annex 2 further states that the ICAO “. . . Council resolved, in adopting Annex 2 in April 1948 and Amendment 1 to the said Annex in November 1951, that the Annex constitutes [r]ules relating to the flight and [maneuver] of aircraft within the meaning of Article 12 of the [Chicago] Convention.” The Foreword to ICAO Annex 2 further states that, “[o]ver the high seas, therefore, these rules apply without exception.” The international standard in ICAO Annex 2, paragraph 5.1.1, states that: “Aircraft shall be equipped with suitable instruments and with navigation equipment appropriate to the route to be flown.”
In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to incorporate by reference the current version of ICAO Annex 2.
The FAA did not receive any comments on the NPRM. With this final rule, the FAA adopts the changes as proposed, except as follows. First, in § 91.703, the name of the relevant ICAO unit, the name of the street on which the unit is located, the address of the unit's Web site, and the address of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Web site where information about material incorporated by reference into Federal regulations can be found have all been updated in the final rule to reflect current information. Second, the FAA neglected to include the relevant ICAO unit's telephone number and email address, as well as the agency phone number for questions from the public regarding ICAO Annex 2, in the NPRM and includes them in this final rule. Third, in the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to remove, but inadvertently neglected to propose to reserve for future use, § 91.705 and Appendix C to part 91. The FAA reserves for future use § 91.705 and Appendix C to part 91 in this final rule. These are minor technical changes that have no substantive effect on regulated entities. Except as described in this paragraph, explanations for the changes to §§ 91.703, 91.705, and 91.1027 and Appendices C and G to part 91 are contained in the NPRM.
Further, in preparing the final rule, the FAA also discovered that it had not proposed to remove the reference to “91.705 Operations within the North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance Specifications Airspace” from the list of rules subject to waiver in § 91.905 although the NPRM proposed to remove, and this final rule does remove, § 91.705 from the CFR. Consequently, removing the reference to § 91.705 from the list of rules subject to waiver in § 91.905 has no substantive effect on regulated entities. The FAA removes the reference to § 91.705 from § 91.905 in this final rule.
As part of the changes proposed in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to incorporate by reference the current version of ICAO Annex 2, up to and including Amendment 45, applicable on November 10, 2016. ICAO Annex 2 contains the ICAO standards that make up the rules of the air applicable to the flight and maneuver of civil aircraft operating over the high seas. ICAO Annex 2, including all amendments through Amendment 32, was incorporated by reference into § 91.703, effective April 9, 1997 (62 FR 17480, Apr. 9, 1997). Since then, an additional thirteen amendments to ICAO Annex 2 have been published, creating an ambiguity about the version of ICAO Annex 2 applicable to operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft in high seas airspace. The amendments to ICAO Annex 2 since the previous incorporation by reference are described in Table 1 in the NPRM (81 FR at 66878).
The FAA noted in the proposed rule that the incorporation by reference of ICAO Annex 2 in § 91.703 did not include the proper language conveying the approval of the Director of the Federal Register. The FAA proposed to incorporate by reference the current version of ICAO Annex 2, including appropriate language to reflect the approval of the Director of the Federal Register. This final rule incorporates by reference ICAO Annex 2, up to and including Amendment 45, applicable on November 10, 2016, into § 91.703.
ICAO Annex 2 is available through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Marketing and Customer Relations Unit, 999 Robert Bourassa Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7, Canada. Also, you may obtain this document on the Internet at
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.
This rulemaking better aligns the FAA's regulations regarding operations in NAT airspace with the relevant ICAO standards. ICAO's NAT Region is transitioning from the decades-old MNPS navigation specification to a more modern, PBN specification. The FAA is also incorporating by reference the current version of ICAO Annex 2 in § 91.703. This action removes all references to MNPS from 14 CFR part 91 and will not impose any new requirements.
Under the Chicago Convention, flights operating in international airspace over the high seas must follow the international standards set forth in ICAO Annex 2. United States operators have historically complied with provisions relevant to high seas airspace in ICAO Annex 2. As operators are already complying with ICAO's provisions relevant to operations over the high seas, the FAA believes this rule removing references to MNPS from 14 CFR part 91 and incorporating by reference the current version of ICAO Annex 2 will impose minimal cost. The FAA requested comments on this determination and received none. Therefore, the FAA maintains that this final rule will impose only minimal cost, has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The FAA recognizes that there are substantial numbers of small entities operating aircraft over the high seas. This rule, however, does not impose a significant economic impact. Flights in international airspace over the high seas must follow the international standards set forth in ICAO Annex 2. Today, United States operators comply with ICAO Annex 2 when flying over the high seas. This rule updates United States regulations to better align with the current version of ICAO Annex 2 effective in high seas airspace, and imposes no new requirements. Thus, all affected entities will incur only minimal costs. The FAA requested and received no comment on the proposed minimal cost determination, and therefore maintains the same minimal cost determination for the final rule.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it improves alignment between FAA regulations and international ICAO standards for the purpose of protecting safety. Consequently, the rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Chicago Convention, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has published differences with ICAO Annex 2 in the United States Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), section GEN 1.7, “Differences From ICAO Standards, Recommended Practices, and Procedures.” The differences listed in the U.S. AIP for ICAO Annex 2 are minor in nature and have no relation to the ICAO Annex 2 requirement for aircraft to be operated with navigation equipment appropriate to the route to be flown. This is consistent with the FAA's support of international compatibility and its obligations under the Chicago Convention.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that this rule is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation and has determined that it will support international regulatory cooperation. This rule removes potential ambiguities about the version of ICAO Annex 2 applicable to the operations of U.S.-registered civil aircraft over the high seas. ICAO Annex 2 contains the international standards applicable to civil aircraft operations over the high seas. This rule also removes outdated references to MNPS, consistent with ICAO's transition to PBN specifications for operations in the NAT HLA.
Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. As determined in Section IV.A., above, this is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—
1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Access the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Although the FAA has not received any comments on the proposed rule, any comments submitted to the docket for this rulemaking in the future may be viewed by going to
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(b) Annex 2 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Rules of the Air, Tenth Edition—July 2005, with Amendments through Amendment 45, applicable November 10, 2016, is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the FAA must publish a document in the
(a) * * *
(2) RVSM may be effective in the High Level Airspace (HLA) within the NAT. The HLA within the NAT is defined by the volume of airspace between FL 285 and FL 420 (inclusive) extending between latitude 27 degrees north and the North Pole, bounded in the east by the eastern boundaries of control areas Santa Maria Oceanic, Shanwick Oceanic, and Reykjavik Oceanic and in the west by the western boundaries of control areas Reykjavik Oceanic, Gander Oceanic, and New York Oceanic, excluding the areas west of 60 degrees west and south of 38 degrees 30 minutes north.
Social Security Administration.
Correcting amendment.
We published final rules in the
This rule is effective August 22, 2017.
Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number 1-800-772-1213, or TTY1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
On July 1, 2016, we published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending 20 CFR part 404, subpart P as set forth below:
Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a) and (h)-(j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and
H. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the NASA Railroad Bridge (Jay Jay Bridge) across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River), mile 876.6, Titusville, Florida. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to repair the bridge. Due to the type of repairs this bridge will be required to remain closed to navigation periodically throughout the day. This deviation is deemed necessary for the continued safe operation of the bridge.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from August 22, 2017 through 4 p.m. on September 26, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from August 17, 2017 at 8 a.m. until August 22, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0778 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email LT Allan Storm, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division; telephone 904-714-7557, email
NASA requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the NASA Railroad Bridge (Jay Jay Bridge), Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River), mile 876.6, Titusville, Florida. The bridge is a single leaf bascule railroad bridge with a seven foot vertical clearance in the closed position. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is found in 33 CFR 117.261(j).
The deviation period is from 8 a.m. on August 17, 2017 to 4 p.m. on September 26, 2017. During this period, the bridge is allowed to remain closed to navigation from 8 a.m. to noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing 11 safety zones on certain navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District. This action is necessary to promote navigational safety, provide for the safety of life and property, and facilitate the reasonable demands of commerce where a threat to navigation exists due to ice covered waterways. This rule is intended to mitigate the potential threat ice poses to the maritime public in the Fifth Coast Guard District by implementing control measures on vessels operating in certain ice covered waterways.
This rule is effective September 21, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Doug Simpson, Fifth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6346, email
On July 9, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Regulated Navigation Area; Ice Covered Waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District (80 FR 39403). The purpose of that proposed regulated navigation area (RNA) was to mitigate the aforementioned potential threat ice poses to the maritime public in the Fifth Coast Guard District by implementing control measures on vessels of certain characteristics. We invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to that RNA. During the comment period that ended October 7, 2015, we received a total of six comments coming from six submitters. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
Based on consideration of the comments received in response to the NPRM and further analysis, the Coast Guard proposed to establish 11 safety
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Coast Guard has determined that during an average or severe winter, the presence of ice in waterways presents numerous hazards to vessels. Such hazards include vessels becoming beset or dragged off course, sinking or grounding and creating hazards to navigation. The presence of ice in a waterway may hamper a vessel's ability to maneuver and impose additional loads on a vessel's hull, propulsion system and appendages. Blockage of sea suctions can cause the main engine cooling system to overheat, requiring reduced power to be used or the engine to be shut down completely. Visual aids to navigation may become submerged, destroyed, or moved off station, potentially misleading the vessel operator to unsafe waters. Vessels operating in these hazardous conditions could introduce a clear and present danger to the maritime public and environment. The purpose of this rule is to mitigate the potential threat ice poses to the maritime public in the Fifth Coast Guard District by implementing control measures on vessels operating in certain ice covered waterways.
As noted above, we received 11 comments from four submitters on our SNPRM published February 9, 2017. One comment was generally supportive of the rule.
In response to one comment, we changed the regulatory text that defined the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway to clarify the safety zone's northern boundaries. The safety zone's northern boundary uses the Fifth Coast Guard District's boundary as defined in 33 CFR 80.501(b)-(c) and 80.502. We changed the rule to define a position for the entrance to Manasquan Inlet. We also changed the rule to define the southern boundary of the zone at Cape May Inlet, Cape May, NJ as it is defined in 33 CFR 80.502 (g). We did not define the width of safety zone in areas where the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway passes through open water areas, as the commenter requested. However, we changed the regulatory text to explicitly include the navigable waters Manasquan River at its tributaries, Metedeconk River and its tributaries, Toms River and Barnegat Bay and its tributaries, Mahahawkin Bay, Little Egg Harbor, Great Bay to Absecon Bay, Lakes Bay, Great Egg Harbor Bay, Peck Bay, Ludlam Bay, Townsend Sound, Stites Sound, Great Sound, Grassy Sound, Taylor Sound, Sunset Lake, Jarvis Sound and Cape May Harbor. The comment also requested we provide the horizontal Datum. We used NAD 83 and changed the regulatory text of each safety zone to incorporate that reference.
Two comments requested that the Coast Guard provide positions for the bridges that serve as boundaries for the Delaware River, Upper Delaware River, Baltimore Harbor and approaches, Chesapeake Channel to Cove Point, Chesapeake Channel between Cove Point and Smith Point, and Lower Potomac River, Potomac River, and the Upper Potomac River and Anacostia River zones. As a result, these positions were provided in the regulatory text where practical. The Coast Guard determined the positions by plotting the locations on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) nautical charts for the following bridges: Betsy Ross (state route 90) fixed highway bridge, Trenton—Morrisville (state route 1) highway bridge, Governor Harry W. Nice (US-301) Memorial Bridge, Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, the Francis Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, and the John Philip Sousa (Pennsylvania Avenue SE) Bridge. The William P. Lane, Jr (US-50/301) Memorial Bridge is curved, and we find it impractical to sufficiently define this boundary using latitude and longitude in this rule. Instead, the southern boundary of the Baltimore Harbor and approaches safety zone and the northern boundary of the Chesapeake Channel to Cove Point safety zone were changed to the southernmost edge of the east-bound span of the of the William P. Lane, Jr (US-50/301) Memorial Bridge.
One comment requested that we describe the end and turning points of all the lines that run along the latitude parallel to another location. We changed the regulatory text of the following safety zones: Chesapeake Channel to Cove Point: Provided positions for the eastern and western extent of the southern boundary; Chesapeake Channel between Cove Point and Smith Point, and Lower Potomac: Provided positions for the eastern and western extent of the northern boundary, and the positions defining southern boundary across the Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound; Upper Potomac River and Anacostia River: Provided position for Hains Point; Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound: the positions defining the eastern and western extent of the northern boundary across the Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound and the eastern and western extent of the southern boundary along latitude 37°45′00.0″ N.
One comment proposed additional smaller zones, with the desire to minimize restriction in portions of the zones that are not impacted by ice. The Coast Guard does not agree with the addition of the proposed zones because the operational complexity and feasibility of enacting those zones is counter to public interest due to the significant amount of time it would take to effectively manage compliance. However, to address the comments, we changed the regulatory text in § 165.550(d)(1) to allow each COTP to set ice conditions for any zone in this rule, or a portion thereof. The COTP may choose not to activate an entire zone if the ice prevalence and thickness is limited in such a way it would be too burdensome to activate the entire zone.
The same commenter stated that there are no provisions for Maryland Department of Natural Resources to request or obtain a waiver from the COTP for icebreaking operations. We changed the rule's definition of public vessels in response to this comment to mean vessels owned or bareboat chartered and operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when such vessel is engaged in commercial service. Because this definition includes vessels engaged in law enforcement, we removed “engaged in law enforcement” from paragraph (d)(1).
An anonymous comment asserted that the Coast Guard did not evaluate the impact of a “business as usual approach” as an alternative to this rule. We do not agree with this assertion because the existing means by which the Coast Guard restricted vessel operations in ice covered waterways was specifically addressed in the NPRM and SNPRM (82 FR 9978). As stated in the SNPRM, permanent safety zones are the most appropriate from a regulatory perspective and will ensure consistency throughout the Fifth Coast Guard District. Furthermore, as stated in the SNPRM, the Coast Guard finds relying
The same anonymous commenter stated that the Coast Guard did not adequately address “biophysical impacts,” details of the “obvious cultural and social impacts” to recreational activities on the water, environmental justice, and economic impacts of alternatives to the proposed rule. The comment was vague and lacked sufficient supporting information needed to determine its validity. We were unable to obtain clarification from this anonymous commenter regarding the various issues mentioned, but the Coast Guard believes this rule remains as one that is a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the analysis supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
One comment stated, “Depending on which shoreline is being used for measurement, a percentage value of coverage may vary considerably, which will affect which areas are selected for closure. It is not known which shoreline standard is being used . . .” In the context of this rule, the shoreline is the extent of navigable waters as they are defined in 33 CFR part 2. We replaced the term shoreline with the term “the extent of navigable waters” to clarify the physical reference point from which ice accumulation will be measured for the purposes of enforcing the rule. The zones cover large geographic areas so that a disproportionate amount of ice accumulation along a shoreline will not have an impact on when the Ice Conditions are set. To clarify the jurisdictional extents of the safety zones, the term “and its tributaries” was added to Delaware Bay, Delaware River, and Upper Delaware River zones.
The same commenter expressed concern that the measurement errors or tolerance that would affect timings of “closure events” is unknown. No changes were made to this rule based on this comment. The Coast Guard finds it reasonable to expect that vessel operators can discern between the ice prevalence and thicknesses that are listed in the regulatory text in order to determine when restrictions are in place. The Coast Guard has consistently received reliable and accurate reports of ice conditions from these same vessel operators in the past. Furthermore, as stated in the regulatory text, the COTP can notify mariners of Ice Conditions and associated restrictions via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and other methods described in 33 CFR 165.7. Vessel operators that encounter ice covered waterways and are uncertain if the zone is in effect may contact the cognizant COTP to determine the waterway status.
The same commenter asked for a list of “protected waters” and their boundary coordinates. This rule defines “protected waters” as, “sheltered waters such as harbors or basins that present no special hazards.” This term is used in this regulation so “vessels may transit within protected waters to facilitate icebreaking operations and protect infrastructure and property without COTP permission.” The commenter specifically asked if contractors moving work barges around bridges would be considered as operating in protected waters and if fishermen attempting to recover nets or other fisheries gear would be considered as protecting infrastructure or property. No changes were made based on this comment. It is not feasible for the Coast Guard to provide a list of activity in every area that could be considered “protected waters” in this rule because the conclusion would vary depending on the vessel, environment, nature of the activity, and infrastructure present at the time the Ice Condition is in effect. The Coast Guard concludes that the present definition provides sufficient parameters that will promote navigational safety, provide for the safety of life and property, and facilitate the reasonable demands of commerce.
Finally, one commenter requested the Coast Guard institute a process whereby the final rule is subject to future review and comment by industry stakeholders at regular intervals to ensure that it remains appropriate to current conditions. The Coast Guard will monitor the effectiveness when executing and enforcing the rule, and ensures that our agency will engage in proper notice-and-comment procedures if we see a need to change the rule.
This rule establishes 11 safety zones on the navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District. This imposes restrictions on vessels operating within the safety zones or a portion of the zones where a threat to navigation exists due to ice covered waterways. Vessels transiting in protected waters, such as within a marina, harbor or basin, for the purposes of facilitating icebreaking operations and protecting infrastructure and property would be exempt from the controls. Vessels capable of operating in the prevailing ice condition outside of protected waters may be allowed to operate within the safety zones if granted permission by the cognizant COTP.
Under this rule, a vessel needs permission from the cognizant COTP or the District Commander to enter or continue transiting a zone if, when approaching or after entering a safety zone, the vessel encounters ice of a given thickness, unless the COTP or the District Commander has set an ice condition for the zone or a portion of the zone and the vessel meets the associated requirements to transit the zone. Descriptions of the three ice conditions and vessel requirements to transit are listed below. Under:
• Condition One, when 30 percent of a zone is reported covered with ice 1 to 3 inches thick, only steel hull vessels would be allowed to transit the zone;
• Condition Two, when 30 to 90 percent of a zone is reported covered with ice 3 to 9 inches thick, only steel hull vessels with a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice would be allowed to transit the zone; and
• Condition Three, when 90 percent or more of a zone is reported covered with ice 9 inches thick, only steel hull vessels with a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice in a vessel convoy would be allowed to transit the zone.
For non-steel-hull vessels, entry into or continuing to transit the zone is prohibited without permission from the cognizant COTP or District Commander if, when approaching the zone or after entering the safety zone, the vessel encounters ice of
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 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, this rule 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 our assessment that although this regulation could limit or prevent marine traffic from transiting certain waterways in the Fifth Coast Guard District, the effect of this regulation would not be significant because there is little vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during enforcement periods. The Coast Guard anticipates implementing control measures for limited durations of time. The cognizant COTP will make notifications of the regulated areas to the maritime public via Broadcast Notice to Mariners so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Moreover, vessel traffic capable of operating in such conditions will be allowed to enter into or transit within the safety zones as specified by the cognizant COTP.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 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 Order13132.
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 (Act) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing safety zones. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination are available in the docket where indicated under
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, 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)
(1)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(3)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(c)
(2)
(i) The vessel has less than 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and encounters ice 1 inch or more thick.
(ii) The vessel has a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice and encounters ice 3 inches or more thick.
(iii) The vessel is part of a vessel convoy and has a 1,500 minimum shaft horsepower and a main engine cooling system design that prevents blockage from ice and encounters ice 9 inches or more thick.
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2) Vessels prohibited from entering or transiting a safety zone under paragraph (c) of this section may request permission to enter or continue transiting by contacting the cognizant COTP on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) or via telephone, as follows:
(i) COTP Delaware Bay: 215-271-4940.
(ii) COTP Maryland-National Capital Region: 410-576-2693.
(iii) COTP Hampton Roads: 757-483-8567.
(3) Vessels granted permission to enter, operate in, or transit though a safety zone must do so in accordance with the directions provided by the cognizant COTP or designated representative.
(4) Vessels may transit within protected waters to facilitate icebreaking
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule: withdrawal.
Due to adverse comments received, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the June 29, 2017, direct final rule that would have approved a revision to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning changes to existing minor source permitting exemptions and a definition related to minor source permitting exemptions. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comments by July 31, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect.
The direct final rule published at 82 FR 29418 on June 29, 2017, is withdrawn, effective August 22, 2017.
D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Phone number: (404) 562-9089; Email:
On June 29, 2017 (82 FR 29418), EPA published a direct final rulemaking to approve portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on September 19, 2006, with a clarification submitted on November 6, 2006. The SIP submission included changes to existing minor source permitting exemptions and a definition related to minor source permitting exemptions. On June 29, 2017 (82 FR 29469), EPA also published an accompanying rulemaking proposing to approve the portions of the aforementioned SIP revision in the event that EPA received adverse comments on the direct final rulemaking.
In the direct final rulemaking, EPA explained that the Agency was publishing the rule without prior proposal because the Agency viewed the submittal as a non-controversial SIP amendment and anticipated no adverse comments. Further, EPA explained that the Agency was publishing a separate document in the proposed rules section of the
On July 31, 2017, EPA received one set of adverse comments from a single Commenter representing four individual groups. As a result of the comments received, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule approving changes to existing minor source permitting exemptions and a definition related to minor source permitting exemptions into the Georgia SIP. If EPA determines that it is appropriate to finalize the proposed approval of these changes to the Georgia SIP, EPA will publish a final rule which will include a response to the comments received. In the event that EPA determines that it is not appropriate to finalize the proposed approval related to these changes, EPA may issue a subsequent proposal with a different course of action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final rule in the
Effective August 22, 2017.
Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address:
On June 23, 2017, the EPA published a direct final rule to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (Portland Cement NESHAP) to allow an alternative monitoring method to be used to comply with hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions standards (82 FR 28562). We stated in that direct final
Although the EPA did provide an opportunity for public comment on the parallel proposal, the EPA also finds that there is “good cause” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to make the amendments discussed in this final rule without prior notice and comment. For this rule, notice and comment is unnecessary because it simply implements an action that the EPA indicated it would take if it received adverse comment on the direct final rule. The record for the provisions being restored is the same record that supported those provisions in the first instance and that was previously subject to notice and comment. These actions are effective as of August 22, 2017.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0416. This action does not change the information collection requirements.
This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. The rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is aware of one tribally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL that will be subject to this final rule. However, the provisions of this final rule are not expected to impose new or substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments since the provisions in this direct final rule are extending the use of an alternative to the HCl monitoring provisions, including an option which provides operational flexibility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(v) * * *
(H) Paragraph (b)(6)(v) of this section expires on July 25, 2017 at which time the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (b)(6)(i), (ii), or (iii).
(l) * * *
(4) If you monitor continuous performance through the use of an HCl CPMS according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (H) of § 63.1349, for any exceedance of the 30 kiln operating day HCl CPMS average value from the established operating limit, you must:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission adopts a four-year rate plan to compensate video relay service (VRS) providers, amends its rules to permit-server based routing for VRS and point-to-point calls, authorizes the continued use of money from the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund for Commission-supervised research and development, eliminates rules providing for a neutral video communications service platform, and reinstates the effectiveness of the rule incorporating the VRS Interoperability Profile technical standard.
Effective September 21, 2017. The compliance date for 47 CFR 64.621(b)(1) is December 20, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publication listed in the rules was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 30, 2017.
Bob Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at: (202) 418-0996, email
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order, FCC 17-86, adopted and released on July 6, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The full text of this document will be available for public inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 17-86 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Document FCC 17-86 does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198,
1. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
2.
3. Even if the issues were not already settled and there was APA notice regarding them, the Commission would not be persuaded by arguments to expand allowable costs. Equalizing all VRS-related costs to a voice telephone user's costs is not part of the Commission's mandate under section 225 of the Act. Congressional intent to equalize either network access rates or equipment costs for TRS and voice service users is not evident in the text of this narrowly drawn provision, its surrounding context, or its legislative history. In 1990, the year of section 225's enactment, all TRS calls took place between individuals who used TTYs and voice users. But the high costs of TTY service rates and equipment were matters of public awareness and were being addressed through state and federal action outside the relay requirements of section 225 of the Act. Regarding service costs, the plain text of this section demonstrates that it solely was intended to prevent relay users from incurring the added costs of routing TRS calls through remote relay centers that lie outside the geographical locations of the parties to a relay call, and nothing more. Congress had knowledge about, and ample opportunity to direct the Commission to equalize telephone service costs for TTY users at the time of section 225's enactment, yet it specifically chose not to do so. Accordingly, the discrepancy between the higher service costs for a broadband connection needed to achieve access to VRS and the costs of
4. Similarly, at the time of section 225's enactment, it was quite evident that the cost of end user equipment needed to complete TRS calls would be significantly greater than the equipment costs incurred by voice telephone users. The average cost for a TTY was $600-$1000, a prohibitive amount for many individuals with low incomes. Again, however, there is simply no indication in section 225 of the Act or its legislative history of an intent by Congress to require the Commission to use the TRS Fund or any other mechanism to equalize such equipment costs. Rather, states developed local programs to distribute TTYs and other specialized customer premises equipment to low income and other eligible individuals with disabilities.
5. Further, disallowance of end user equipment costs from compensable expenses does not discourage the development of improved technology. Rather, compensation to providers for the provision of free equipment
6. By not authorizing recovery of the costs of VRS CPE, the Commission avoids offering preferential subsidies to certain VRS providers (
7.
8. In effect, the argument for recovery of the imputed value of a TRS provider's intellectual property appears to be a way of arguing that VRS providers should be able to gain additional profit for what they have invested in R&D. Although the Commission allows providers to recover their reasonable expenses of providing TRS, in prior decisions it has disallowed claims for “profit” in excess of a reasonable allowance for the cost of raising capital. Although in the section following the Commission modifies the method of estimating capital costs by adopting an “operating margin” approach that will allow providers greater opportunity to recover such costs, the Commission does not thereby authorize providers to recover additional “markup” or profit that goes beyond such reasonable allowance.
9.
10.
11. The Commission concludes that consideration of operating margins earned in analogous industries may be a reasonable approach to setting an allowed operating margin for VRS providers. However, information technology (IT) consulting companies are not sufficiently analogous to VRS providers for their operating margins to serve as a reasonable proxy. Unlike IT consulting companies, the bulk of VRS costs are labor costs, primarily salaries and benefits for interpreters, who need
12. Selecting an operating margin from among this wealth of data regarding arguably analogous industry sectors is not subject to precise determination. The Commission notes that for 2016 (or 2015, in the case of government contractors, as that was the most recent year surveyed), none of the industry sector surveys described above, other than the one cited by Sorenson, had average operating margins greater than 7.6%, and that even the high technology firms cited by Sorenson have a median operating margin of only 12.35%. Based on the current record, and in light of the Commission's statutory mandate to ensure that VRS is made available “to the extent possible, and in the most efficient manner,” the Commission concludes that the range of 7.6% to 12.35% represents the “zone of reasonableness” of an allowable operating margin for VRS providers.
13. Over the last four years, the Commission has observed the results of its 2013 structural reform and rate initiatives, including the effects on provider incentives, to the extent those can be discerned. The 2013 plan provided for reducing the rate gap between highest- and lowest-priced tiers, with the ultimate expectation that the tiered rate structure eventually would be replaced by a unitary compensation rate for all minutes, which would be set either directly or by proxy based on competitive bidding. This expectation was, in turn, based on the assumption that structural reforms, such as effective interoperability and portability standards and the establishment of a neutral routing platform would generate a “more competition-friendly environment” for small providers. There was also an expectation that, pending the completion of such structural reforms, the temporary continuation of a tiered rate structure would both encourage improvements in efficiency and ensure that smaller providers “have a reasonable opportunity to compete effectively during the transition and to achieve or maintain the necessary scale to compete effectively after structural reforms are implemented.”
14. The record confirms that most of these underlying expectations and assumptions have not been borne out by experience. First, a number of the Commission's expectations regarding the pace and content of structural reforms have proven to be overly optimistic. Improved interoperability standards were not incorporated into the Commission's rules until this year, and some aspects of equipment portability, which was expected to improve the competitiveness of the VRS market by facilitating consumers' use of inexpensive, off-the-shelf devices, have yet to secure consensus from the VRS industry. Further, the neutral video communications platform, which the
15. Second, provider cost reports overall do not show the major improvements in smaller providers' efficiency that the Commission assumed were possible. With the “glide path” reductions in VRS compensation rates, providers have been under pressure to improve efficiency, and the record indicates that certain providers have taken significant measures to do so. The weighted average of historical per-minute costs reported by VRS providers has declined from 2013 to 2016; however, the decline has been relatively modest, compared to the period from 2009 to 2012, when average per-minute costs declined by more than $1.00 per minute. Thus, while it appears that providers have achieved some efficiency improvements, other factors, such as the lack of full interoperability, may have limited their success. As a result, the Commission's expectation that smaller VRS providers would be able to make substantial improvements in efficiency within the past four-year period was not fulfilled.
16. Third, updated VRS demand data confirm that the VRS market structure is largely unchanged since 2013, when “Sorenson provide[d] about 80% of the VRS minutes logged every month, and its two principal competitors each provide[d] another five to ten percent.” Since then, the two cited competitors of Sorenson have merged, but it is too early to predict how that merger will affect the viability of competition in the VRS market (other than reducing the total number of competitors from five to four). What is clear, however, is that competitors have not made significant inroads into Sorenson's market share, and no VRS provider has been able to grow significantly so as to achieve “the necessary scale to compete effectively.”
17. As a consequence of these developments, there remain vast differences in the per-minute costs of VRS providers, which roughly track the vastly different market shares of each current provider. As long as such lopsided cost structures persist, it seems highly unlikely that any of the non-dominant VRS providers can compete successfully to gain market share vis-à-vis the largest, least-cost provider.
18. In the face of these unfulfilled expectations and assumptions, the Commission must choose from a number of alternative courses to take. One possible course would be to seek to maximize efficiency by transitioning to a single rate set at the level of the allowable costs of the lowest-cost provider, or alternatively, at the level of the average allowable costs for the VRS industry. This approach would reduce the cost burden on the TRS Fund, at least in the short term, but, given the current disparate cost structures in the VRS market, also would be likely to eliminate all VRS competition. The Commission has consistently sought to
19. A second alternative would be to transition to a single rate set at the cost level of some higher-cost provider—most likely the next-lowest-cost provider. Due to the current imbalance among VRS providers' cost structures, however, this method would be likely to result in greatly increased TRS Fund expenditures, because the most efficient provider—with the overwhelming bulk of minutes—would be compensated at a rate far in excess of its actual costs. Such inefficient use of TRS Fund resources is not permitted by section 225 of the Act if there is a more efficient method of ensuring the availability of functionally equivalent service. In addition, by generating an extremely uneven set of operating margins—huge windfall profits for one provider and minimally sufficient margins or actual operating losses for the others, taking this approach seems likely to doom any prospect of the VRS market evolving to a more competitive structure. Indeed, adopting this approach, as a practical matter, would inevitably eliminate two of the four existing VRS competitors. A single rate could not be set high enough to allow a third provider to remain in the market without raising TRS Fund expenditures and allowing the windfall profits for lower-cost providers to achieve astronomical levels.
20. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that the alternative proposed in the
21. First, the application of tiered rates rather than a single rate will help ensure that there continue to be competitive options for VRS users, an objective that takes on special importance at this time, in light of the recent attrition in the VRS market. Although there were six independently owned providers at the time of the
22. Moreover, the record indicates that, at this time, a tiered rate structure is more likely than a single-rate structure to improve the efficiency with which the TRS Fund supports VRS. Given the major disparities in service provider size and cost structure, tiered rates enable the Commission to reduce waste of TRS Fund resources by limiting compensation that is excessive in relation to a provider's actual costs. Thus, the Commission is not persuaded that a tiered rate structure, by allowing payment of a higher effective compensation rate to less efficient VRS providers, necessarily contravenes the mandate that VRS be available in the most efficient manner. While the mandate is for the Commission to ensure the availability of VRS in the most efficient manner, the Commission must measure such efficiency by comparing the
23. Further, the Commission must consider the value users get for the compensation paid to providers, and may take into consideration the extent to which the participation of less efficient providers produces other benefits in the way of improved services for consumers. In this regard, on numerous occasions, the Commission has made clear that there are benefits in supporting less efficient providers that meet the needs of niche populations, including people who are deaf-blind or speak Spanish, enabling the entrance of new companies that can introduce technological innovations into the VRS program, and ensuring that consumers with hearing and speech disabilities can select among multiple VRS providers—just as voice telephone users do. While the Commission is obligated to ensure the efficiency of the VRS program, it cannot sacrifice functional equivalency in doing so. Moreover, it is the Commission's statutory obligation not to merely seek a short-term savings in an accounting sense; rather the Commission must consider the consequences of its actions in the long run. By supporting the continued participation of multiple providers, a tiered rate structure can help to prevent the VRS marketplace from devolving into a monopoly environment, thereby providing the Commission with much needed flexibility to consider other approaches that may improve efficiency. For example, one option the Commission may want to consider in the future is a reverse auction, in which multiple providers bid for offering service at the most efficient levels; but such an approach would not be feasible if all providers except one have been driven out of the market. A tiered rate structure allows the Commission to set rates that permit each provider an opportunity to recover its reasonable costs of providing VRS, without overcompensating those providers who have lower actual costs because, for example, they have reached a more efficient scale of operations.
24. The Commission also does not agree that tiered rate structures necessarily detract from providers' incentives to grow and increase their efficiency. As to growth incentives, while there could theoretically be a risk that a provider would “put the brakes on” its growth as it approached a tier boundary, a review of each providers' compensable minutes over the last few years does not suggest that providers' growth rates have been affected as their minutes approach a tier boundary. Moreover, to the extent there is such a
25. Further, the tiers set under this structure are not provider-specific. Rather, each tier is equally applicable to any provider's minutes that fall within that tier. Accordingly, under the tier structure the Commission adopts, the provider with both relatively large and relatively small volumes of minutes are each compensated at the higher (Tier I) rate for their first 1 million minutes, at a lower (Tier II) rate for additional minutes between 1,000,000 and 2,500,000, and at the lowest (Tier III) rate for any minutes over 2,500,000.
26. The Commission also declines to adopt at this time a plan for transitioning from tiered rates to a single rate structure. The anticipated developments that the Commission thought would eliminate any need for tiered rates have not materialized. Not only have structural reforms been delayed and reduced in scope, but expected gains in individual provider efficiency have not occurred, the largest VRS provider's current market share remains approximately the same, and there continue to be wide disparities among providers' cost structures. Thus, the Commission's experience to date does not provide sufficient confidence that transitioning to a single rate structure would be consistent with preserving the benefits of competition and ensuring the availability of VRS in the most efficient manner. With additional time, this situation may change. The full implementation of competition-promoting interoperability and portability standards, as well as the introduction of some new reforms in other areas, may offer greater opportunities for providers to compete more effectively with one another. Additionally, the Commission is currently gathering comment on service quality metrics, which, when defined, measured, and published, will enhance VRS competition by enabling consumers to make more informed decisions in their selection of their VRS providers. At a later time, the Commission can revisit the compensation rate structure issue as appropriate in light of such developments.
27. The Commission concludes that alternative approaches to setting VRS rates proposed in the
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33. In order to maintain incentives for growth and avoid subjecting emergent providers to a sudden drop in the rate applicable to all their minutes when they reach the 500,000-minute ceiling, providers who are initially subject to the emergent rate and who then generate monthly minutes exceeding 500,000 shall continue to be compensated at the otherwise applicable emergent rate (rather than the Tier I rate) for their first 500,000 monthly minutes, until the end of the four-year rate plan,
34. For emergent providers, the Commission adopts a $5.29 per minute rate for each year of the four-year plan. To the extent that these providers have demonstrated the ability to show consistent, substantial growth over the past years, provider cost projections indicate that this rate will afford such providers a reasonable opportunity to meet their expenses and earn some profit. The Commission expects that this opportunity should be enhanced with the implementation of provider interoperability and other competition-promoting measures, such as the development and publication of service quality metrics.
35. However, the Commission does not intend that this rate structure continue to apply to any currently operating providers after the end of the four-year rate plan adopted in document FCC 17-86. During the next four years, the provision of a special rate for emergent providers may not impose major costs on Fund contributors, but the likely benefits to consumers will also remain very limited unless these emergent companies manage to use this four-year window of opportunity to expand their market share. Therefore, after four years, the Commission intends that all existing providers, regardless of size, will be subject to the same rate structure (whether tiered or unitary) under the compensation scheme that then takes effect.
36.
37. Further, the existence of persistent cost differences between the largest and lowest-cost VRS provider and its smaller competitors is undisputed. To maintain a competitive environment for the near term, the Commission's most realistic option is to set compensation rates that allow the few remaining VRS competitors an additional period of time to offer a competitive alternative to the lowest-cost provider, while reforms continue to be implemented. In this context, the Commission's primary concern is not to identify the exact extent of scale economies but to ensure that tiers reflect the disparate sizes and cost structures of current competitors. Further, as the Commission also recognized in 2013, significant potential harm to competition could result if the rate tier boundaries are too low and prevent smaller competitors from remaining in the market, while if the Commission sets the boundaries too high the only consequence will be that smaller, less efficient competitors may remain in the market longer than would otherwise be the case, resulting in somewhat higher expenditures from the Fund. With the intervening attrition in the number of VRS competitors, the Commission's preference is even greater today for striking a balance that emphasizes preserving competition.
38. The Commission expands the Tier I boundary to 1,000,000 minutes, in order to ensure that the “emergent” providers, as well as any new entrants, as they grow large enough to leave the “emergent” category, will be subject to a rate that reflects their size and likely cost structure and that is appropriately higher than the marginal rate applicable to larger and more efficient providers. Tier I, which also applies to the first 1,000,000 minutes of each larger provider, allows the Commission to set a rate that is high enough to ensure that each provider is able to cover its
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45. Although Sorenson asserts that a proper analysis of VRS costs indicates the Tier III rate should be higher, the Commission does not rely on Sorenson's analysis for several reasons. First, projections for the second year out (in this case, 2018), which are included in Sorenson's analysis, historically have had a poor record of accuracy. Second, Sorenson's cost calculation includes costs that are not allowable, as well as a 15.9% operating margin, which is outside the zone of reasonableness the Commission has adopted.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50. The Commission finds good cause to make the rule changes adopting a new four-year rate plan in document FCC 17-86 effective as of July 1, 2017. The current rate plan was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. Providers have been aware of this pending expiration since 2013, and have further been aware of the Commission's proposal to establish a new rate plan going forward. To avoid unnecessary disruption to VRS providers' operations and to ensure the ability of consumers to continue to place and receive VRS calls, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) recently acted to waive the June 30, 2017 expiration of the existing rates and directed Rolka Loube to continue compensating VRS providers at the prevailing rates, pending further action by the Commission.
51. As the Commission now takes action to establish a new four-year rate regime, the Commission directs Rolka Loube to compensate VRS providers at the applicable rates adopted herein for all compensable minutes of use incurred beginning July 1, 2017, except that, to ensure that the release of document FCC 17-86 after July 1 does not adversely affect any VRS provider, the Commission will not apply the reduction in Tier III rates to any compensable minutes of use incurred between July 1 and the release date of document FCC 17-86. To implement this provision (given that minutes of use are compensated on a monthly basis), the Commission directs Rolka Loube to compensate any provider with Tier III minutes in July 2017 at a rate of $3.49 per minute for the first
52.
53. Under the TRS numbering rules, calls that involve multiple VRS
54. The Commission adopts its proposal in the
55. The Commission adopts its proposal to delete the rule provisions relating to the neutral video communications service platform (Neutral VRS Platform). Although the Commission requested bids to build the Neutral VRS Platform, no acceptable bids were received, and the Commission canceled that procurement. Because no party has made any showing that the Commission should request new bids for the Neutral VRS Platform or otherwise expressed any interest in utilizing it, the Commission (i) removes §§ 64.601(a)(20) and (45), 64.611(h), and 64.617 and (ii) modifies §§ 64.604(b)(2)(iii), (b)(4)(iv), and (c)(5)(iii)(N)(
56. In the
57. In the Order (
58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the
59. Document FCC 17-86 addresses server-based routing of VRS calls, and funding for Commission-directed R&D.
60. First, by amending TRS rules to permit server-based routing, document FCC 17-86 expands the ways that VRS calls can be routed. Under a new interoperability standard, calls may be routed to a server of the terminating VRS provider that serves multiple VRS users and devices, rather than directly to a specific device. This new routing method uses the providers' domain names, rather than user-specific IP addresses, as is currently required.
61. Second, the Commission directs the TRS Fund administrator, as part of future annual ratemaking proceedings, to include for Commission approval proposed funding for Commission-directed R&D. Such funding is necessary to continue to meet the Commission's charge of furthering the goals of functional equivalence and efficient availability of TRS.
62. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
63. The server-based routing rule amendment adopted in document FCC 17-86 will affect obligations of VRS Providers. These services can be
64. Server-based call routing involves the use of domain names, and VRS providers using this method will need to keep records of such domain names. The domain names will then be processed as call routing information, just as other call routing information is processed currently. The funding for R&D will have no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
65. Server-based call routing using domain names will be available to all VRS providers, will not be burdensome, and will advance interoperability. Greater interoperability will foster competition, thereby benefitting the smaller providers. To the extent there are differences in operating costs resulting from economies of scale, those costs are reflected in the different compensation rate structures applicable to large and small VRS providers.
66. The funding for R&D does not have any compliance or reporting requirements impacting small entities. Indeed, small entities are not covered by the rule.
67. No commenters raised other alternatives that would lessen the impact of any of these requirements on small entities vis-à-vis larger entities.
68. None.
69. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, and 225, document FCC 17-86 is adopted, and part 64 of Title 47 is amended.
70. Pursuant to section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and §§ 1.4(b)(1) and 1.427(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.427(b), the VRS compensation rates became effective on July 1, 2017.
71. A copy of document FCC 17-86 shall be sent by overnight mail, first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to all known VRS providers.
72. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 17-86, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Incorporation by reference, Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications relay services, Video relay services.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(12)
(14)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii)
(4) * * *
(iv) A VRS provider leasing or licensing an automatic call distribution (ACD) platform must have a written lease or license agreement. Such lease or license agreement may not include any revenue sharing agreement or compensation based upon minutes of use. In addition, if any such lease is between two eligible VRS providers, the lessee or licensee must locate the ACD platform on its own premises and must utilize its own employees to manage the ACD platform.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(N) * * *
(
(
(a) * * *
(2) For each record associated with a VRS user's geographically appropriate NANP telephone number, the URI shall contain a server domain name or the IP address of the user's device. For each record associated with an IP Relay user's geographically appropriate NANP telephone number, the URI shall contain the user's user name and domain name that can be subsequently resolved to reach the user.
(b) * * *
(1) Beginning no later than December 20, 2017, VRS providers shall ensure that their provision of VRS and video communications, including their access technology, meets the requirements of the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, via a non-substantive change request, the information collection requirements associated with Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band adopted in the Commission's
47 CFR 96.49, published at 80 FR 36163, June 23, 2015, is effective on August 22, 2017.
For additional information, contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on August 7, 2015, OMB approved, via a non-substantive change request, the information collection requirements associated with two technical rules (47 CFR 96.49 and 96.51) adopted in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on August 7, 2015, for the non-substantive change to information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 96.49 and 96.51. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers is 3060-0057.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
The following is a description of the information collection requirements for which the Commission received OMB approval:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
Upon application from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron (hereinafter referred to as 86 FWS), NMFS is issuing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to Long Range Strike (LRS) Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP) exercises on the Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE) of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii. These regulations allow NMFS to issue a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the USAF 86 FWS's specified activities carried out during the rule's period of effectiveness, set forth the permissible methods of taking, set forth other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the incidental take. The specific activities are classified as military readiness activities.
Effective on August 21, 2017, through August 22, 2022.
To obtain an electronic copy of the USAF 86 FWS's LOA application or other referenced documents, visit the Internet at:
Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
A copy of the 86 FWS's LOA application, NMFS proposed rule (82 FR 21156; May 5, 2017), the 86 FWS's
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing this rule and any subsequent LOA pursuant to those regulations. As directed by this legal authority, this final rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
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 Secretary sets forth permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat. 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.”
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Section 319, Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003) (NDAA of 2004) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): “(i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” (Level A Harassment); “or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered” (Level B Harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS has adopted the 86 FWS's EA/OEA, after an independent evaluation of the document found that it included adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing incidental take authorizations. The 86 FWS made the draft EA/EOA available for public comment from July 27 through August 26, 2016; no public comments were received. The final EA/EOA is available at
On December 21, 2016, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from the 86 FWS for regulations for the taking of 16 species of marine mammals representing 16 stocks incidental to LRS WSEP activities in the BSURE area of the PMRF off Kauai, Hawaii. On January 6, 2017, we published a notice of receipt of the 86 FWS's application in the
NMFS previously issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the 86 FWS authorizing the taking of marine mammal species incidental to similar activities in 2016 (81 FR 67971; October 3, 2016). The 86 FWS complied with all the requirements (
Following is a summary of some of the major provisions applicable to 86 FWS's LRS WSEP training missions. We have determined that 86 FWS's adherence to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included in this rule would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. The provisions, which are generally designed to minimize the duration and total volume of explosive detonations, include:
• Restricting missions to daylight hours, only on weekdays, and only during the summer (June through August) or fall (September through November) months.
• Limiting activity to one mission per calendar year with the 2017 mission limited to one day (dropping 8 small diameter bombs only) and the 2018 through 2022 missions limited to 4 days of training over a 5-day period. We note the proposed rule stated that training would occur for five days per mission; however, the 86 FWS has clarified the fifth day is a contingency day and no training will occur on the fifth day if the scheduled four days of training are completed.
• Limiting each mission day to four hours of training. This training duration limitation was presented in the proposed rule.
• Reducing the number and type of munitions. We note this constitutes a 40 to 92 percent reduction in total munitions from the proposed rule depending upon mission year.
• Conducting a systematic aerial survey covering 8 miles (mi) (13 kilometers (km)) using military aircraft equipped with sensor pods (
• Monitoring for marine mammals within the weapon impact area using range cameras stationed on Makaha Ridge before, during and after training each mission day. This requirement constitutes an additional method of monitoring for marine mammals that was not included in the proposed rule.
• Delaying mission activities if a marine mammal is observed in the designated exclusion zone (2.3 mile (mi) (3,704 m) for all missions and delaying missions if a marine mammal is observed within the Level A and/or Level B harassment zone but no take is authorized, resuming only after the animal is observed exiting the exclusion zone or the exclusion zone has been clear of any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes. In the proposed rule, a mitigation measure was included that required mission delays if a protected species was observed within an impact zone; however, we have authorized the taking of marine mammals; therefore, this measure has been altered to a more practicable, consistent, and specified distance from the target site, which would avoid take in a manner that is not authorized (
• Shifting the target site as far from a marine mammal observation as possible if it has been determined the mission may continue without taking a marine mammal in a manner not authorized. This mitigation measure is new to the final rule in an effort to further minimize impacts to marine mammals.
• Delaying missions if adverse weather conditions impair the ability of aircraft to operate safely. This measure was included in the proposed rule.
• Notifying NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) and Pacific Islands Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network of scheduled mission activities at least 72 hours prior to executing training exercises, within 24 hours of mission completion, and immediately if a dead or injured marine mammal is sighted.
• Submitting a report of marine mammal surveys and LRS WSEP activities to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and PIRO 90 days after expiration of the current authorization. If subsequent regulations and LOA are requested, a draft report will be included with the incidental take authorization application.
• Collecting passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) data using the U.S. Navy's hydrophones on the PMRF range before, during, and after LRS WSEP missions. These data will be stored at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and analyzed to better understand the effects of WSEP training activities on marine mammals. A report will be submitted to NMFS 90 days after expiration of this rule or included with an application requesting future MMPA authorizations, whichever is first. Please see the
• Delaying training if an unauthorized take of a marine mammal (
• Notifying OPR, PIRO, and the Pacific Island Region Stranding Network immediately, should a marine mammal be sighted that is dead or seriously injured, when such mortality or injury is clearly not a result of LRS WSEP activities (
The proposed rule (82 FR 21156; May 5, 2017) and the 86 FWS EA/OEA include a complete description of the USAF's specified training activities for which NMFS is authorizing incidental take of marine mammals in this final rule. Surface and sub-surface detonations are the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment. The aforementioned documents can be found at
The LRS WSEP test objective is to conduct operational evaluations of long range strike weapons and other munitions as part of LRS WSEP operations to properly train units to execute requirements within Designed Operational Capability Statements, which describe units' real-world operational expectations in a time of war. LRS WSEP objectives are to evaluate air-to-surface and maritime weapon employment data, evaluate tactics, techniques, and procedures in an operationally realistic environment and to determine the impact of tactics, techniques, and procedures on combat Air Force training.
Mission training will take place on the U.S. Navy's PMFR. The PMRF is the world's largest instrumented, multi-dimensional testing and training missile range, covering over 1,100 square miles (2,800 km
LRS WSEP training missions, classified as military readiness activities, refer to the deployment of live (containing explosive charges) missiles and bombs from aircraft toward the water surface. Depending on the requirements of a given mission, munitions may be inert (containing no explosives or only a “spotting” charge) or live (containing explosive charges). Live munitions may detonate above, at, or slightly below (10 ft (3 m)) the water surface.
Air-to-surface training missions include testing of the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile/Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile-Extended Range (JASSM/JASSM-ER), Small Diameter Bomb-I/II (SDB-I/II), High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM/LJDAM), and Miniature Air-Launched Decoy (MALD), including detonations above the water, at the water surface, and slightly below the water surface (Table 1). The JASSM is a stealthy precision cruise missile designed for launch outside area defenses against hardened, medium-hardened, soft, and area type targets. The JASSM has a range of more than 200 nmi (370 km) and carries a 1,000-lb warhead with approximately 300 lbs of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent net explosive weight (NEW). The specific explosive used is AFX-757, a type of plastic bonded explosive (PBX). The SDB-I is a 250-lb air-launched GPS-INS guided weapon for fixed soft to hardened targets. SDB-II expands the SDB-I capability with network enabling and uses a tri-mode sensor infrared, millimeter, and semi-active laser to attack both fixed and movable targets. Both munitions have a range of up to 60 nmi (111 km). The SDB-I contains 37 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW, and the SDB-II contains 23 lbs NEW. The explosive used in both SDB-I and SDB-II is AFX-757. The HARM is a supersonic air-to-surface missile designed to seek and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defense systems. It has a range of up to 80 nmi (148 km) and contains 45 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW. The explosive used is PBXN-107. The JDAM is a smart GPS-INS weapon that uses an unguided gravity bomb and adds a guidance and control kit, converting it to a precision-guided munition. The LJDAM variant adds a laser sensor to the JDAM, permitting guidance to a laser designated target. Both JDAM and LJDAM contain 192 lbs of TNT-equivalent NEW with multiple fusing options, with detonations occurring upon impact or with up to a 10-millisecond delay. The MALD is an air-launched, expendable decoy with ranges up to 500 nmi (926 km) to include a 200 nmi (370 km) dash with a 30-minute loiter mode. It has no warhead, and no detonation would occur upon impact with the water surface.
Mission aircraft may consist of fighter aircraft including F-16, F-15, A-10, and bombers such as B-1 and B-52. Weapon deployment will occur from at least one aircraft. These aircraft will be outfitted with sensors (
All munitions would be detonated within a four hour timeframe daily. Since the publication of the proposed rule, the USAF clarified the five mission days described in the proposed rule actually constitute four bombing days and one day set aside as contingency (
Releases of live ordnance associated with missions conducted under this rule would result in either airbursts, surface detonations, or subsurface detonations (10 ft (3 m) water depth). Up to four SDB I/II munitions could be released simultaneously, such that each ordnance would hit the water surface within a few seconds of each other. Aside from the SDB-I/II releases, all other weapons would be released separately, impacting the water surface at different times. Prior to weapon release, a range sweep of the hazard area would be conducted by participating mission aircraft or other appropriate aircraft, potentially including S-61N helicopter, C-26 aircraft, fighter aircraft (F-15E, F-16, F-22), or the Coast Guard's C-130 aircraft, to clear the area of civilian vessels and aircraft. The size and shape of the hazard area is determined by the maximum distance a weapon could travel in any direction during its descent and typically adjusted for potential wind speed and direction, resulting in a maximum composite safety footprint for each mission (each footprint boundary is at least 10 nmi from the Kauai coastline).
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see the
A notice of receipt of USAF 86 FWS's application published in the
Since development of the proposed rule, 86 FWS has reduced the amount of munitions it intends to detonate each year and clarified that each mission would only occur for a maximum of four days, annually, which represents a reduction from the proposed rule. The five days included in the proposed rule included one contingency day (
The 86 FWS will retain the option of using a helicopter to conduct the surveys should the target pods malfunction; however, this is not the preferred aerial platform.
We reviewed the aforementioned reports cited in the comment letter and determined the weapon impact area used for LRS WSEP activities, which is located at the very north end of the PMRF underwater range, has significant technical differences in PAM capabilities compared to the majority of areas where the researchers have been directed to study marine mammals for the Navy. The PMRF is comprised of three distinct regions: The SWTR, BSURE and Barking Sands Tracking Underwater Range (BARSTUR). The SWTR (Shallow Water Test Range) is the closest to shore and in the shallowest waters and comprises the smallest physical area with hydrophones. The majority of PMRF's hydrophones (118, although many are not operational) are at SWTR, and all are high pass filtered at ~10 kHz and located relatively close together (hydrophone spacing is designed to be a function of depth). The second largest area is the BARSTUR at 13.3 percent the size of BSURE, located just south of BSURE in shallower waters with 42 hydrophones (some not operational). Thirty six of the hydrophones are high pass filtered at ~10 kHz. Six BARSTUR hydrophones have lower frequency response (
The largest and most northern area is the BSURE and is where the weapon impact area is located. The BSURE has 41 recently installed “replacement” hydrophones with response ~50 Hz to 48 kHz. The 18 legacy BSURE hydrophones (some not operational) have response ~100 Hz to ~ 19 kHz and are located in similar positions to some of the replacement hydrophones. Hydrophones spacing ranges from approximately 4 km to over 7 km, in water depths ranging from 1.7 km to 4.7 km. In summary, the detection and localization capabilities on PMRF are not uniform throughout the range due to the number of hydrophones, frequency response, spacing, and depth logistics. For example, the depth and spacing of hydrophones in the BSURE is much greater (
For these reasons as well as those cited in the proposed rule, NMFS has not included a requirement to use PAM to trigger mitigation. We note the U.S. Navy also does not use PAM to trigger mitigation on the PMRF. However, per the 86 FWS's Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, the 86 FWS will collect acoustic data and provide a report to NMFS upon expiration of the LOA (or concurrent with a future LOA application, whichever is first) informing the potential impacts of the missions on marine mammals (see the
As described in the proposed rule, NMFS acknowledges that behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific, and that any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (
For those animals that do avoid the area, we remain confident this behavior will reduce the potential for TTS and PTS. The avoidance reaction we predict does not necessarily need to occur on a large spatial scale (
There are 25 marine mammal species with potential or confirmed occurrence in the proposed activity area. Not all of these species occur in this region during the project timeframe, or the likelihood of occurrence is very low. The “Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities” section included in the proposed rule (82 FR 21156; May 5, 2017) and sections 3 and 4 of the USAF's application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. These descriptions have not
Of the 25 species that may occur in Hawaiian waters, 16 species occur in densities great enough during the seasons the training exercises may occur (summer or fall) to warrant inclusion in this rule (Table 2). The final list of species is based on summer density estimates, a conservative range-to-effects, and duration of the activity.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
Subsequently, NMFS (2016) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower bound from Southall
In the
This section provides the number of incidental takes, by stock, authorized
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
Authorized takes primarily cover Level B harassment, as explosive detonations have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns and/or TTS for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for mysticetes and high frequency species due to the size of the predicted auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. No mortality or serious injury is authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. These elements and the method by which takes were calculated are described in detail in the proposed rule for this action. While some aspects have not changed
Based on the best available science, NMFS uses the acoustic and pressure thresholds indicated in Table 4 to predict the onset of behavioral harassment, PTS, tissue damage, and mortality.
Based on the thresholds in Table 4, the USAF calculated the distances to each based on the amount of ordnance that could be dropped on any given day per the munition amounts included in the application. We also note that for sources that are detonated at shallow depths such as is the case here, explosions may breach the surface with some of the acoustic energy escaping the water column. The source levels used in the acoustic model were not adjusted for this possible venting nor did subsequent analysis attempt to take this into account; therefore, this is another reason to identify the resulting analysis as conservative.
Although the amount of munitions included in each mission has been significantly reduced, the USAF was unable to recalculate these distances using the original modeling due to time and funding constraints. Therefore, the reduction in impacts (
To determine the final amount of take authorized in the proposed rule, we considered the amount of take proposed based on the original amount of munitions released versus the final amount of munitions and the fact the 86 FWS would only conduct one day of training in 2017 and up to four days, annually, in 2018 through 2022 (the proposed rule considered five days of activity for each year). The amount of munition reduction ranges from 40 to 92 percent based on year. Based on these factors, we adjusted takes to be more realistic but also conservative to allow for adequate coverage (Table 6). For those species where take was equal to fewer than five animals, annually, we maintained this amount of take to account for random occurrence on any given day. For all other species, we reduced the amount of take by 20 percent (or one half of the lowest reduction for any given year (
We expect the amount of take we are authorizing to be a very conservative estimate and the likelihood of the 86 FWS reaching or exceeding that level of take is unlikely given the reduced amount of munitions proposed each year, the reduction of training duration, and the mitigation and monitoring measures. NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed to be authorized because NMFS is authorizing (and analyzing) the modeled number of Level A harassment takes, which does not take the mitigation or avoidance measures into consideration.
In order to issue regulations and a LOA under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action because there are no subsistence uses in Hawaii). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). The NDAA for FY 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
The primary means of mitigating for impacts to marine mammals is mission delay if marine mammals are observed within certain distances from the weapon impact site during pre-mission surveys, during missions, or via range camera monitoring. Since promulgation of the proposed rule, the 86 FWS identified that the 2017 missions would be limited to one day involving only eight small diameter bombs (23 to 37 lb NEW). The 2018 through 2022 missions include more explosives than 2017 constituting all possible munitions types; however, in substantially less amount than included in the proposed rule. The range-to-effects distances modeled by the USAF includes 24 explosives ranging from 300 to 23 lb NEW. The USAF did not have the capability to remodel range to effects based on the reduced amount of munitions; therefore, we have outlined circumstances that conservatively accounts for this reduction separately for 2017 and jointly for 2018 through 2022. In the final rule, we identify an “exclusion zone” as absolutely triggering a delay while a “harassment zone” may or may not trigger a delay based on species observed and distance from the weapon impact site. The following circumstances apply to the implementation of exclusion zones and mitigation zones.
For all mission years, training shall be delayed if a marine mammal is observed within a 2.3 mi (3,704 m) exclusion zone. In the 86 FWS's 2016 IHA, this was the monitoring and mitigation zone established based on eight small diameter bombs (37 lb NEW) and one JASSM/JASSM-ER (300 lb NEW). This distance also greatly exceeds the maximum calculated range-to-effects for mortality and tissue injury when considering the original amount and type of munitions (Table 5). This exclusion zone will avoid any mortality or tissue damage, avoid PTS of mid-frequency cetaceans, and reduce the potential for severe PTS and TTS in low-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans. A standard minimum 2.3 mi (3,704 m) exclusion zone also allows for consistency in mitigation throughout each year for implementation ease. Therefore, NMFS has applied this exclusion zone as the threshold for mission delay mitigation for all training conducted during the effective dates of the regulations.
For all missions, delay of mission is to be triggered based on the location of an observed marine mammals relative to the weapon impact site. If a species is observed within a harassment zone identified in Table 5 (based on hearing group) and take is not authorized for that species or the 86 FWS has exceeded take for that species, mission delay mitigation would be triggered.
The USAF has also committed to delaying deployment of munitions if an animal is sighted anywhere within the
If adverse weather conditions impair the ability of aircraft to operate safely, missions will either be delayed until the weather clears or cancelled for the day.
In order to issue regulations authorizing take incidental to a specified activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
During the proposed rulemaking stage, the USAF 86 FWS proposed using a helicopter as a marine mammal survey platform and conducting such surveys before and after each day of training as this was the survey method used during the 2016 mission for which NMFS issued an IHA. However, in consideration of public comment and additional available methods, NMFS recommended monitoring enhancements intended to better address the increased duration and amount of activity covered in this rule as compared to the one-day activity in the IHA. As a result, the USAF 86 FWS, in consultation with NMFS, modified their Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to increase marine mammal detection probability and more clearly articulate the protocols followed for the survey. The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, found at
A pre-mission and post-mission survey will be conducted by a chase aircraft (
Advanced targeting pods are most frequently used by the USAF and are currently installed on F-16, F-15C/E, A-10, B-1, and B-52 aircraft. Combat aircrews receive extensive training and have gained combat experience using advanced targeting pods to track and identify targets that are similar in size, and in some cases smaller than, marine mammals. For example, the USAF was able to detect sharks from an AC-130 aircraft conducting a 3-mi (5-km) orbit at 15,000 ft altitude using an electro-optical/infrared sensor in the Gulf of Mexico within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (see Figure 2 in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). Even though the aircraft and survey location are different than what is proposed under Long Range Strike WSEP activities, the capabilities to detect marine life near the water surface are expected to be similar.
Mission aircraft are capable of flying at various altitudes and airspeeds. As part of operational procedures, aircrew must conduct aerial surveillance of a potential impact or target area prior to releasing any weapons to confirm the location of the target and ensure the human safety zone around the impact area is clear. In order to accomplish this, the aircraft must operate at an appropriate altitude and airspeed that is operationally safe while meeting mission objectives. The range of altitudes and airspeeds at which this occurs varies across all aerial platforms; therefore, a specific altitude and airspeed requirement cannot be determined because each LRSWSEP event will not have the same types of aircraft participating each year. However, regardless of aircraft type, the pre-mission aircraft will be equipped with a sensor pod to survey for marine mammals.
In addition to aerial surveys, there are other assets on the PMRF Range that will also be used to supplement the aerial surveys. Range cameras are installed on Makaha Ridge, at an elevation between 1,500 and 1,700 ft, and are able to see out to 50 nmi from the shore. Since the weapon impact area is approximately 44 nm from shore, it would be within the line of sight of the cameras. The optical lenses of the cameras have the zoom capability to see marine life if they are at or near the surface. The camera feed will be monitored by personnel within the
During the mission (
NMFS may modify and augment the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with the 86 FWS regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring. Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures in an LOA include, but is not limited to:
(i) Results of new range-to-effects models based on maximum amount of weapons, by type, utilized during each mission;
(ii) Results from 86 FWS's monitoring from the previous year(s);
(iii) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; or
(iv) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by the regulations or subsequent LOA.
The final regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to 86 FWS training activities on the BSURE area of the PMRF contain an adaptive management component. The reporting requirements associated with this final rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow NMFS to consider whether any changes are appropriate. NMFS and the 86 FWS would meet to discuss the monitoring reports, activities, any updated modeling efforts, and current science and whether mitigation or monitoring modifications are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the 86 FWS regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing adverse effects to marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat and if the measures are practicable.
The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results of new range-to-effects models based on maximum amount of weapons, by type, utilized during each mission; (2) results from 86 FWS's monitoring from the previous year(s); (3) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; or (4) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by the regulations or subsequent LOA.
NMFS has defined negligible impact 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” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Behavioral disruption due to Level B harassment would be limited to reactions such as startle responses, movements away from the area, and short-term changes to behavioral state. These impacts are expected to be temporary and of short duration because the specified activity would be limited to 4 hours per day for no more than 4 days per year. We do not anticipate that the effects would be detrimental to rates of recruitment and survival because we do not expect serious or extended behavioral responses that would result in energetic effects at the level to impact fitness.
In terms of what is analyzed for the potential PTS (Level A harassment) in marine mammals as a result of 86 FWS's LRS WSEP operations, the ranges-to-effects identified are conservative (
While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the activity, because of the short duration of the actual individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) combined with the short duration of the LRS WSEP operations (
In past missions (October 2016), the 86 FWS completed pre- and post-aerial surveys. The 86 FWS did not observe any marine mammals during the pre-mission aerial survey before missions occurred, and did not observe any marine mammals after missions were completed. The 86 FWS was authorized for Level A and Level B harassment takes of five species, but the ordinance failed to detonate therefore, in addition to no marine mammal sightings, no take was documented.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
There is one marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction that is listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA with confirmed or possible occurrence in the Study Area, the sei whale. The USAF 86 FWS consulted with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and NMFS also consulted internally on the issuance of a rule and LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for LRS WSEP training activities. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion concluding that the issuance of the rule and subsequent LOA are likely to adversely affect, but are not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of the threatened and endangered species under NMFS' jurisdiction and are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat in the PMRF. The Biological Opinion for this action is available on NMFS' Web site (
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The USAF 86 FWS is the sole entity that would be affected by this rulemaking, and the USAF 86 FWS is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Because this action directly affects the USAF 86 FWS and not a small entity, NMFS concluded the action will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that there is good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C 553(d)(3)) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of the measures contained in the final rule. NMFS is unable to accommodate the 30-day delay of effectiveness due to delays resulting from: Late changes in the action (reductions in activity levels and increased monitoring protocol that would improve protections for marine mammals), and the resulting need for new take analysis to address decreased munitions in both this rule and the accompanying Biological Opinion. The USAF 86 FWS is the only entity subject to the regulations, and it has requested that NMFS issue the LOA prior to the scheduled August 24, 2017, training to avoid mission delays. A waiver of the 30-day delay of the effective date of the final rule will allow the USAF 86 FWS to finalize operational procedures to ensure compliance with required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, and have MMPA authorization in place to support of the training exercise. Any delay of enacting the final rule would result in either: (1) A suspension of planned USAF training, which would disrupt vital training essential to national security; or (2) the USAF's procedural non-compliance with the MMPA (should the USAF conduct training without an LOA), thereby resulting in the potential for unauthorized takes of marine mammals. For these reasons, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date.
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the 86 Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) and those persons it authorizes to conduct activities on its behalf, for the taking of marine mammals as outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and incidental to Long Range Strike Weapons System Evaluation Program (LRS WSEP) missions.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by 86 FWS pursuant to a Letter of Authorization (LOA) is authorized only if it occurs at the Barking Sands Underwater Range Expansion (BSURE) area of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Kauai, Hawaii.
Regulations in this subpart are effective August 21, 2017, through August 22, 2022.
Under a LOA issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.56, the Holder of the LOA (herein after 86 FWS) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment associated with LRS WSEP activities within the area described in § 218.50, provided the activities are in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations in this subpart and the associated LOA.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 218.50 and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.56, no person in connection with the activities described in § 218.50 may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or the LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.56.
(b) Take a marine mammal species or stock not specified in the LOA; and
(c) Take a marine mammal species or stock specified in the LOA in any manner other than as specified.
When conducting activities identified in § 218.50, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.56 must be implemented. These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to the following general conditions:
(a) Execute missions during day-light hours only, no more than four hours per day, no more than one day during 2017, no more than four days per year for 2018 through 2022 over a five-day period, on weekdays, and only during summer (June through August) or fall (September through November) months.
(b) Delay live munition detonations if a marine mammal is observed within the designated exclusion zone (2.3 mile (mi) (3,704 m) from the weapon impact site), resuming only after the animal is observed exiting the exclusion zone or the exclusion zone has been clear of any additional sightings for a period of 30 minutes.
(c) Delay live munition detonations if a marine mammal is observed in an impact zone but outside of the 2.3 mi exclusion zone and if the manner of taking is not authorized (
(d) Shift the target site as far as possible from an observed marine mammal's location (but within the two-mile wide weapon impact area) if a marine mammal is observed during the pre-mission survey or during missions and continuing the mission will not result in an unauthorized take of a marine mammal.
(e) Suspend live munition detonations if an unauthorized take of a marine mammal occurs, and report the incident to NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), and the Pacific Islands Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network representative immediately followed by a report to NMFS within 24 hours.
(f) Implement a best management practice, on a daily basis, of conducting inert munition training or small bomb detonations prior to detonating large bombs if the Project Engineer/Commanding Office determines this practice does not interfere with mission training.
(g) Additional mitigation measures as contained in an LOA.
(a) Holders of LOAs issued pursuant to § 218.56 for activities described in § 218.50(a) are required to cooperate with NMFS, and any other Federal, state, or local agency with authority to monitor the impacts of the activity on marine mammals. Unless specified otherwise in the LOA, the Holder of the LOA must notify the Pacific Islands Region Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, by email, at least 72 hours prior to LRS WSEP missions.
(b) All marine mammal monitoring will be carried out in compliance with the 86 FWS Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, dated August 2017.
(c) Aerial Surveys: The 86 FWS will conduct pre-, during, and post-training surveys each mission day.
(1) The marine mammal survey monitoring area will extend no less than approximately 8 mi (13 kilometers (km)) from the designated impact site.
(2) Surveys will utilize military aircraft equipped with advanced targeting sensor pods (
(3) A pre-mission marine mammal survey will commence no later than 30 minutes prior to beginning training activities.
(4) Aircraft personnel will also observe for marine mammals during training (
(5) Aircraft personnel will conduct a post-mission survey for marine mammals immediately following the end of training each mission day. A helicopter may be used in lieu of mission aircraft only if sensor pod is not available.
(d) Range Camera Surveys: 86 FWS personnel will use the Makaha Ridge range cameras to monitor for marine mammals within the weapon impact area at least 30 minutes prior to, during, and immediately after training activities.
(e) Helicopter surveys: If military aircraft equipped with a sensor pod cannot be used for marine mammal surveys, the 86 FWS may substitute a
(f) Acoustic Monitoring:
(1) The 86 FWS will comply with all acoustic monitoring as described in the 86 FWS Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
(2) Acoustic data from the PRMF hydrophones will be collected and stored by the 86 FWS. Data will be analyzed to better understand the effects of LRS WSEP missions. The results of the analysis will accompany any subsequent LOA request or, if no request is made, no later than 90 after expiration of the LOA.
(g) The 86 FWS will contact the Pacific Islands Region stranding coordinator, NMFS, by email, at least 72 hours prior to mission onset and one business day after completion of missions to declare that missions are complete.
(h) The Holder of the LOA is required to:
(1) Submit a draft report to NMFS OPR on all monitoring conducted under the LOA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring or accompanying a subsequent application for regulations. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the Monitoring Plan, and shall also include:
(i) Date and time of each LRS WSEP mission;
(ii) A complete description of the pre-exercise, exercise, and post-exercise activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of LRS WSEP missions on marine mammals; and;
(iii) Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the LRS WSEP mission and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the designated harassment zones.
(iv) The draft report will be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report will be considered the final report for this activity under the LOA if NMFS has not provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.
(2) Report injured or dead marine mammals:
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the LOA, such as an injury for species not authorized (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, the 86 FWS shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to Pacific Islands Regional Stranding Coordinator (888-256-9840), NMFS followed by a report submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources and the Pacific Islands Regional Office within 24 hours. The report must include the following information:
(A) Time and date of the incident;
(B) Description of the incident;
(C) Environmental conditions (
(D) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(E) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(F) Fate of the animal(s); and
(G) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(ii) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with 86 FWS to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The 86 FWS may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(iii) In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(iv) In the event that 86 FWS discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the LOA (
(3) Additional Conditions:
(i) The Holder of the LOA must inform the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301-427-8400) or designee (301-427-8401) prior to the initiation of any changes to the monitoring plan for a specified mission activity.
(ii) A copy of the LOA must be in the possession of the safety officer on duty each mission day.
(iii) The LOA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these regulations, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, 86 FWS must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 218.57.
(e) The LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) The number of marine mammals, by species and stock, authorized to be taken;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA will be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.56 for the activity identified in § 218.50(a) will be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section), and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal request by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.56 for the activity identified in § 218.50(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management—NMFS may modify and augment the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with the 86 FWS regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring.
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures in an LOA include, but is not limited to:
(A) Results of new range-to-effects models based on maximum amount of weapons, by type, utilized during each mission;
(B) Results from 86 FWS's monitoring from the previous year(s);
(C) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; or
(D) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by the regulations or subsequent LOA.
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in the LOA issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.50, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Request for comment.
NCUA has established a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to oversee the implementation of the agency's regulatory reform agenda. This is consistent with the spirit of President Trump's regulatory reform agenda and Executive Order 13777. Although NCUA, as an independent agency, is not required to comply with Executive Order 13777, the agency chooses to comply with its spirit and has reviewed all of NCUA's regulations to that end. The substance of the Task Force's initial report is provided in this notice. NCUA seeks public comment on the report and if any other regulatory changes should be made.
Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
Public Inspection: You can view all public comments on NCUA's Web site at
Thomas I. Zells, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 or telephone: (703) 548-2478.
NCUA, as a prudential safety and soundness regulator, is charged with protecting the safety and soundness of the credit union system and, in turn, the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) and the taxpayer through regulation and supervision. NCUA's mission is to “provide, through regulation and supervision, a safe and sound credit union system, which promotes confidence in the national system of cooperative credit.”
President Trump has established a regulatory reform agenda and issued multiple executive orders designed to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. NCUA is not subject to these executive orders but has nonetheless chosen to comply with them in spirit. Executive Order 13777, entitled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” directs subject agencies to establish Regulatory Task Forces and to evaluate existing regulations to identify those that should be repealed, replaced, or modified. The Executive Order requires subject agencies to, at a minimum, attempt to identify regulations that:
1. Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
2. Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
3. Impose costs that exceed benefits;
4. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
5. Are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
6. Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
In complying with the spirit of Executive Order 13777, NCUA formed its Task Force in March 2017. The Task Force undertook an exhaustive review of NCUA's regulations and issued its first draft report to Chairman McWatters in May 2017 and submitted it without change to the NCUA Board in June 2017. This report outlines the Task Force's proposed review and reporting procedures and makes numerous recommendations for the amendment or repeal of regulatory requirements that the Task Force believes are outdated, ineffective, or excessively burdensome. The substance of the report is provided below. The report has been minimally modified from its original form to ensure readability and compliance with
Executive Order 13777 requires agencies to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Although NCUA is not required to comply with this Executive Order, the agency is choosing to comply with its spirit. From the end of March to the beginning of May, the Task Force met and reviewed all of NCUA's Regulations to determine how best to fulfill the aims of the Executive Order and decide what regulations could be eliminated, revised, improved, or clarified. This report contains the Task Force's initial findings and recommendations.
The Task Force has developed a comprehensive four-year agenda for reviewing and revising NCUA's Regulations. The regulations are broken into three tiers that cover the four-year scope. The Task Force approached this task with Executive Order's stated policy of “alleviat[ing] unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people” and the strong philosophy of regulatory relief embraced by both the new administration and NCUA's Chairman in mind. As a result, the Task Force's recommendations eclipse the depth of changes previously proposed during NCUA's Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA) and annual one-third regulatory review processes. For comparison purposes, this report also includes NCUA's 2016 EGRPRA report to Congress and the agency's regulatory review recommendations from 2014-2016. These attachments are not included in this
The primary factors for evaluating the tiers were degree of impact and degree of effort, which are described in Section II of this report [section III.c of this
Consistent with the spirit of the Executive Order, the Task Force recommends publishing in the
Going forward, the Task Force shall determine a mechanism for measuring progress in performing the tasks outlined in the Executive Order and report to the Board. The Task Force also recommends that in the second quarter of 2018, after NCUA has received and evaluated public comments on the summary version of Section III [III.d], the Task Force, upon consultation with the Board, provide the Board with a second report and a refined blueprint of the timeline for completing the specific amendments discussed in Tiers 2 and 3 of Section III [III.d] of this report. It is important to note that, while the report and refined blueprint will guide NCUA's actions moving forward, the process of implementing the amendments suggested in Tier 1 has already begun.
Executive Order 13777 states that “it is the policy of the United States to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” It goes on to require that each Task Force created under this Executive Order “evaluate existing regulations [ ] and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law.”
Executive Order 13777 requires agencies to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) to oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Although NCUA is not required to comply with this Executive Order, the agency is choosing to comply with its spirit. Because NCUA is an independent agency, it does not have the structure of a cabinet department. Accordingly, the Task Force has tried to cohere the language of the Executive Order to NCUA's structure, as well as follow the timeline outlined in it.
On March 20, 2017, Chairman McWatters appointed General Counsel Michael McKenna as NCUA's Regulatory Reform Officer and chair of the Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). In addition, Chairman McWatters appointed to the Task Force the following: (1) Larry Fazio, Director, Examination & Insurance; (2) Ralph Monaco, Chief Economist; (3) Scott Hunt, Director, Office of National Examinations & Supervision; (4) Eugene Schied, Deputy Chief Financial Officer; and (5) Bob Foster, Director of Public and Congressional Affairs. General Counsel Michael McKenna added Special Counsel to the General Counsel Ross Kendall and Staff Attorney Tom Zells to the Task Force on March 21, 2017.
From the end of March to the beginning of May, the Task Force met and reviewed all of NCUA's Regulations to determine how best to fulfill the aims of the Executive Order and decide what regulations could be eliminated, revised, improved, or clarified. Section II [III.c] provides five general recommendations for complying with the spirt of the Executive Order. Section III [III.d] outlines those regulations the Task Force believes are ripe for reform. The current recommendations are the views of the Task Force; the Task Force has not yet consulted with the NCUA Board, other NCUA staff or sought the opinion of the credit union industry. Sections IV and V of this document contain the NCUA portion of the final EGRPRA report and NCUA's annual one-third regulatory reviews from 2014-2016. The Task Force's recommendations are generally consistent with that report and the regulatory reviews, but more fully embrace the regulatory relief philosophy of the current administration, the Chairman and Executive Order 13777, and should be used as guiding principles for the NCUA Board's regulatory reform initiatives moving forward.
The NCUA Regulatory Reform Task Force recommends a comprehensive approach for eliminating, revising, improving, and clarifying NCUA's regulations over a four year period. The approach would examine all aspects of NCUA's regulations and embrace the strong philosophy of regulatory relief promoted by the new administration, NCUA's Chairman, and Executive Order 13777. The Task Force's recommendations propose greater and more significant regulatory relief amendments than have been embraced in the past. As such, this report makes recommendations that, while for the most part consistent with those articulated in NCUA's EGRPRA report
The general framework for this approach considers as primary factors both the “degree of effort” and “degree of impact” involved in amending each section of the existing regulations.
Additional consideration is also given to the need to connect or sequence certain changes together, efforts to change regulations that are already underway, and the overall level of resources available to carry out this comprehensive approach. All regulatory changes will require the affirmative vote of the NCUA Board.
The
The table on the following page arranges these two primary factors into an effort/impact prioritization matrix. The purpose of the matrix is to guide agency efforts toward the actions that are expected to yield the greatest benefit relative to the degree of effort to make a particular change. The more immediate focus of the regulatory reform effort should emphasize changes that would require a relatively small effort in order to yield a large impact (benefit), as well as some changes with a significant impact that may require a higher degree of effort (the right side of the matrix). Changes that would fall on the left side of the matrix (lesser impact) will also be pursued in this comprehensive approach, but in many cases as a less immediate focus.
The Task Force's initial prioritization of regulatory reforms is presented in Section III [III.d] of this document, which prioritizes the regulatory review into three tiers. As expressed in Section III [III.d], Tier 1 regulations provide the most important targets for reform and they should be amended in the first two years of this project. Tier 2 and Tier 3 regulations would be implemented in year three and year four respectively. The timeframe for Tier 2 and Tier 3 is dependent on timely completion of Tier 1 and NCUA Board priorities. Tier 2 and Tier 3 regulations should be scheduled later because generally these will require more research and consensus on reform initiatives.
Consistent with the Executive Order, the Task Force recommends publishing in the
The Task Force also recommends that in the second quarter of 2018, after NCUA has received and evaluated
In light of the comprehensive approach articulated by the Executive Order, the Task Force recommends suspending the Office of General Counsel's annual one-third review of NCUA's Regulations because the Task Force will have reviewed all of NCUA's Regulations as part of this project. The Task Force recommends that the one-third review be revived again in 2020.
The Task Force recommends that the offices of primary interest, the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Examination & Insurance take the lead in revising all regulations. This makes sense both because of the substantive expertise each office of primary interest will have for individual regulations and because the regular duties of both the General Counsel and the Director of E&I encompass the efforts that will be required in amending the regulations. The lead offices will also consult and engage other offices as needed.
Finally, the Task Force recommends the agency continue to coordinate with the other federal financial institution regulators to determine if there are any joint rulemakings that can be targeted for reform.
As noted, Section III [III.d] details the specific regulations the Task Force identified as being ripe for reform initiatives and makes general recommendations about how each of the identified regulations should be amended and the timeline that should be followed. The Task Force's recommendations, as described in Section II [III.c], follow.
Executive Order 13777 requires that “each Regulatory Reform Task Force shall seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations.” In compliance with the spirit of the Executive Order, the Board seeks comments on all aspects of the Task Force's report.
Commenters are also encouraged to discuss any other relevant issues they believe NCUA should consider with respect to reducing regulatory burden and fulfilling the aims of Executive Order 13777. The Board requests that, to the extent feasible, commenters provide documentation to support any recommendations.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; petition for rulemaking; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
This document is publishing in the
Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1071.
In the
On page 34615, in the second paragraph under the
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense; and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of the Army are extending the comment period for the proposed rule “Definition of `Waters of the United States'—Recodification of Pre-existing Rules.” The agencies are extending the comment period for 30 days in response to stakeholder requests for an extension, from August 28, 2017 to September 27, 2017.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on July 27, 2017, at 82 FR 34899, is extended. Comments must be received on or before September 27, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0203, at
Ms. Donna Downing, Office of Water (4504-T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-2428; email address:
On July 27, 2017 (82 FR 34899), the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army published the proposed rule “Definition of `Waters of the United States'—Recodification of Pre-existing Rules” in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (Portland Cement NESHAP). We are proposing to revise the testing and monitoring requirements for hydrochloric acid (HCl) due to the current unavailability of HCl calibration gases used for quality assurance purposes.
The EPA must receive written comments on this proposed rule on or before October 6, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442, at
Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address:
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 63.1340. If you have questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
On June 23, 2017, the EPA published a direct final rule that provided a compliance alternative for sources that would otherwise be required to use a HCl continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit (82 FR 28562). At the same time, we published a parallel proposal in which we proposed to make the same amendment to the NESHAP. The EPA indicated that it would withdraw the direct final rule if it received adverse comment. The EPA received adverse comment on that direct final rule, but was not able to timely withdraw the rule. In this proposal, the EPA is re-proposing and providing additional opportunity for public comment on the same amendment to the NESHAP that was proposed on June 23, 2017. Simultaneously with this proposal, the EPA is taking final action to withdraw the June 23, 2017, direct final rule. Comments received on the June 23, 2017, direct final rule and/or parallel proposal will be deemed to be submitted on this proposal, unless the commenter withdraws the original comment.
For comments on this proposal, do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through
On July 25, 2016, the EPA published an alternative monitoring method for sources that would otherwise be required to use an HCl CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (81 FR 48356). The alternative was provided for a period of 1 year. The alternative monitoring method allowed sources to demonstrate compliance by using CEMS readouts as a parameter monitor to indicate relative changes from the observed CEMS HCl reading. Specifically, the alternative required installation of an HCl CEMS to provide a continuous readout of HCl emissions. However, actual compliance with the HCl emissions limit of 3 parts per million by volume (ppmv) was determined by a three-run stack test. During the stack test, the average HCl CEMS reading was determined. The alternative allows this CEMS reading to become a continuous operating parameter that must be met on a 30-day rolling average. The EPA determined it was appropriate to allow this alternative because some facilities have been unable to obtain National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-
In this action, the EPA is proposing to extend the use of the alternative monitoring method, as described in the July 25, 2016, direct final rulemaking (81 FR 48356). Because this alternative is only needed until such time as the NIST-traceable calibration gases become available, the EPA intends to remove the alternative once such gases become available.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0416. This action does not change the information collection requirements.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action does not create any new requirements or burdens and no costs are associated with this proposed action.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is aware of one tribally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL that will be subject to this proposed rule. However, the provisions of this proposed rule are not expected to impose new or substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments since the provisions in this proposed rule are extending the use of an alternative to the HCl monitoring provisions, including an option which provides operational flexibility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(v) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator may demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test using Method 321 of appendix A to this part. You must also monitor continuous performance through use of an HCl CPMS according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (G) of this section. For kilns with inline raw mills, compliance testing and monitoring HCl to establish the site specific operating limit must be
(l) * * *
(4) If you monitor continuous performance through the use of an HCl CPMS according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (G) of § 63.1349, for any exceedance of the 30-kiln operating day HCl CPMS average value from the established operating limit, you must:
Federal Communications Commission.
Extension of comment deadline.
In this document, the Connect2HealthFCC Task Force (Task Force) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), extends the deadline for interested parties to submit comments and reply comments in response to the notice issued on April 24, 2017, on
Submit comments and reply comment on or before September 29, 2017.
You may submit comments and reply comments, identified by GN Docket No. 16-46, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ben Bartolome, Special Counsel, Connect2HealthFCC Task Force, at (770) 935-3383, or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 17-664, released on July 21, 2017. The complete text of this document is available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site, at
In document DA 17-664, the Federal Communications Commission's Connect2Health Task Force announces that it will convene several virtual listening sessions over several weeks (
This document also announces that the formal comment period for GN Docket No. 16-46 will remain open until September 29, 2017, to give interested parties an opportunity to file additional comments and information following the completion of the aforementioned virtual listening sessions (noting that the initial deadlines for filing comments and reply comments in response to the notice in GN Docket No. 16-46 were May 24, 2017, and June 8, 2017, respectively). Further, parties have also expressed interest in submitting comments and suggestions for enhancements related to the
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a Petition for Rulemaking filed by Wind River Broadcasting, Inc., proposing to amend the FM Table of Allotments, of the Commission's rules, by allotting Channel 274C2 at Cora, Wyoming, as a first local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 274C2 can be allotted to Cora, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules without a site restriction. The reference coordinates are 43-03-24 NL and 110-08-07 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before September 21, 2017, and reply comments on or before October 6, 2017.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for the petitioner as follows: Dan J. Alpert, Esq., The Law Office of Dan J. Alpert, 2120 N. 21st Rd., Arlington, VA 22201
Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, 310, 334, 336 and 339.
(b)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter, Service or we) proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2017-18 migratory bird hunting season.
You must submit comments on the proposed regulations by September 21, 2017.
•
•
We will post all comments on
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.
As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, we developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more efficient and will provide dates much earlier than was possible under the old process. This will facilitate planning for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning in the summer of 2015, with the development of the 2016-17 hunting seasons, we are using a new schedule
We developed the guidelines for establishing special migratory bird hunting regulations for Indian Tribes in response to tribal requests for recognition of their reserved hunting rights and, for some Tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal and nontribal hunters on their reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal hunters, with hunting by nontribal hunters on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of the usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10 to September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Treaty). The guidelines apply to those Tribes having recognized reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and on ceded lands. They also apply to establishing migratory bird hunting regulations for nontribal hunters on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where Tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting or where the Tribes and affected States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal hunters on lands owned by non-Indians within the reservation.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory bird hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to Service approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations governing hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such cases, we encourage the Tribes and States to reach agreement on regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When appropriate, we will consult with a Tribe and State with the aim of facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and State officials in the affected States where Tribes wish to establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands. Because of past questions regarding interpretation of what events trigger the consultation process, as well as who initiates it, we provide the following clarification.
We routinely provide copies of
Our guidelines provide for the continued harvest of waterfowl and other migratory game birds by tribal members on reservations where such harvest has been a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not take place during the closed season defined by the Treaty, and does not adversely affect the status of the migratory bird resource. Before developing the guidelines, we reviewed available information on the current status of migratory bird populations, reviewed the current status of migratory bird hunting on Federal Indian reservations, and evaluated the potential impact of such guidelines on migratory birds. We concluded that the impact of migratory bird harvest by tribal members hunting on their reservations is minimal.
One area of interest in Indian migratory bird hunting regulations relates to hunting seasons for nontribal hunters on dates that are within Federal frameworks, but which are different from those established by the State(s) where the reservation is located. A large influx of nontribal hunters onto a reservation at a time when the season is closed in the surrounding State(s) could result in adverse population impacts on one or more migratory bird species. The guidelines make this unlikely, and we may modify regulations or establish experimental special hunts, after evaluation of information obtained by the Tribes.
We believe the guidelines provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian Tribes while ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives necessary protection. The conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Further, the guidelines should not be viewed as inflexible. In this regard, we note that they have been employed successfully since 1985. We believe they have been tested adequately and, therefore, we made them final beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season (53 FR 31612, August 18, 1988). We should stress here, however, that use of the guidelines is not mandatory and no action is required if a Tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the reservation is located.
On June 10, 2016, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (81 FR 38050). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2017-18 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and
The June 10 proposed rule also provided detailed information on the proposed 2017-18 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.
On October 25-26, 2016, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2017-18 regulations for these species.
On February 9, 2017, we published in the
Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under
We used the following reports: Adaptive Harvest Management, 2017 Hunting Season (August 2016); American Woodcock Population Status, 2016 (August 2016); Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status, 2016 (September 2016); Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2014-15 and 2015-16 Hunting Seasons (October 2016); Mourning Dove Population Status, 2016 (August 2016); Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes, Mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations, 2016 (September 2016); and Waterfowl Population Status, 2016 (August 2016).
For the 2017-18 hunting season, we received requests from 24 Tribes and Indian organizations. In this proposed rule, we respond to these requests and also evaluate anticipated requests for six Tribes from whom we usually hear but from whom we have not yet received proposals. We actively solicit regulatory proposals from other tribal groups that are interested in working cooperatively for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory game birds. We encourage Tribes to work with us to develop agreements for management of migratory bird resources on tribal lands.
The proposed frameworks for flyway regulations were published in the
The Colorado River Indian Reservation is located in Arizona and California. The Tribes own almost all lands on the reservation, and have full wildlife management authority.
We have yet to hear from the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The Tribes usually request a split dove season, with the early season beginning on September 1 and ending on September 15, 2017. Daily bag limits would be 15 mourning or white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 may be white-winged dove. Possession limit would be 45, of which no more than 30 may be white-winged dove. They usually request the late season for doves to open November 7 and close December 20, 2017. The daily bag limit would be 15 mourning doves. The possession limit would be 45. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to noon in the early season and until sunset in the late season. Other special tribally set regulations would apply.
The Tribes also usually propose duck hunting seasons. The season would usually open October 17, 2017, and close January 25, 2018. The Tribes usually propose the same season dates for mergansers, coots, and common moorhens. The daily bag limit for ducks, including mergansers, would be seven, except that the daily bag limits could contain no more than two hen mallards, two redheads, two Mexican ducks, two goldeneye, three scaup, one pintail, two cinnamon teal, and one canvasback. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit after the first day of the season. The daily bag and possession limit for coots and common moorhens would be 25, singly or in the aggregate. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
For geese, the Colorado River Indian Tribes usually propose a season of October 18, 2017, through January 19, 2018. The daily bag limit for geese would be three light geese and three dark geese. The possession limit would be six light geese and six dark geese after opening day. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
In 1996, the Tribes conducted a detailed assessment of dove hunting. Results showed approximately 16,100 mourning doves and 13,600 white-winged doves were harvested by approximately 2,660 hunters who averaged 1.45 hunter-days. Field observations and permit sales indicate that fewer than 200 hunters participate in waterfowl seasons. Under the proposed regulations described here and based upon past seasons, we and the Tribes estimate harvest will be similar.
Hunters must have a valid Colorado River Indian Reservation hunting permit and a Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp in their possession while hunting. Other special tribally set regulations would apply. As in the past, the regulations would apply both to tribal and nontribal hunters, and nontoxic shot is required for waterfowl hunting.
We propose to approve the Colorado River Indian Tribes regulations for the 2017-18 hunting season, if the seasons' dates fall within final flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only) and upon receipt of their proposal.
For the past several years, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the State of Montana have entered into cooperative agreements for the regulation of hunting on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The State and the Tribes are currently operating under a cooperative agreement signed in 1990, which addresses fishing and hunting management and regulation issues of mutual concern. This agreement enables all hunters to utilize waterfowl hunting opportunities on the reservation.
As in the past, tribal regulations for nontribal hunters would be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Goose, duck, and coot season dates would also be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Shooting hours for waterfowl hunting on the Flathead Reservation are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Steel shot or other federally approved nontoxic shots are the only legal shotgun loads on the reservation for waterfowl or other game birds.
For tribal members, the Tribe proposes outside frameworks for ducks and geese of September 1, 2017, through March 9, 2018. Daily bag and possession limits were not proposed for tribal members.
The requested season dates and bag limits are similar to past regulations. Harvest levels are not expected to change significantly. Standardized check station data from the 1993-94 and 1994-95 hunting seasons indicated no significant changes in harvest levels and that the large majority of the harvest is by nontribal hunters.
We propose to approve the Tribes' request for special migratory bird regulations for the 2017-18 hunting season.
Since 1996, the Service and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians have cooperated to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members. The Fond du Lac's December 6, 2017, proposal covers land set apart for the band under the Treaties of 1837 and 1854 in northeastern and east-central Minnesota and the Band's Reservation near Duluth.
The band's proposal for 2017-18 is essentially the same as that approved last year. The proposed 2017-18 waterfowl hunting season regulations for Fond du Lac are as follows:
The following general conditions apply:
1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid Ceded Territory License.
2. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.
3. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Model Off-Reservation Code. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting.
4. Band members in each zone will comply with State regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas.
5. There are no possession limits for migratory birds. For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of band members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.
The band anticipates harvest will be fewer than 500 ducks and geese, and fewer than 10 sandhill cranes.
We propose to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.
In the 1995-96 migratory bird seasons, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Service first cooperated to establish special regulations for waterfowl. The Grand Traverse Band is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located on the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay in Leelanau County, Michigan. The Grand Traverse Band is a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season.
For the 2017-18 season, the Tribe requests that the tribal member duck season run from September 1, 2017, through January 20, 2018. A daily bag limit of 35 would include no more than 8 pintail, 4 canvasback, 5 hooded merganser, 8 black ducks, 8 wood ducks, 8 redheads, and 20 mallards (only 10 of which may be hens).
For Canada and snow geese, the Tribe proposes a September 1, 2017, through February 15, 2018, season. For white-fronted geese and brant, the Tribe proposes a September 20 through December 30, 2017, season. The daily bag limit for Canada and snow geese would be 15, and the daily bag limit for white-fronted geese and including brant would be 5 birds. We further note that, based on available data (of major goose migration routes), it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population will be harvested by the Tribe.
For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2017, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed five birds. For mourning doves, snipe, and rails, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2017, season. The daily bag limit would be 15 mourning dove, 10 snipe, and 10 rail.
For sandhill crane, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2017, season. The daily bag limit would be 3 birds and a season limit of 10 birds.
For snipe and rails, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2017, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 birds per species.
Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The Tribe proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. Harvest surveys from the 2013-14 hunting season indicated that approximately 30 tribal hunters harvested an estimated 100 ducks and 45 Canada geese.
We propose to approve the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting proposal.
Since 1985, various bands of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians have exercised judicially recognized, off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds in Wisconsin. The specific regulations were established by the Service in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) (GLIFWC is an intertribal agency exercising delegated natural resource management and regulatory authority from its member Tribes in portions of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota). Beginning in 1986, a Tribal season on ceded lands in the western portion of the Michigan Upper Peninsula was developed in coordination with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. We have approved regulations for Tribal members in both Michigan and Wisconsin since the 1986-87 hunting season. In 1987, GLIFWC requested, and we approved, regulations to permit Tribal members to hunt on ceded lands in Minnesota, as well as in Michigan and Wisconsin. The States of Michigan and Wisconsin originally concurred with the regulations, although both Wisconsin and Michigan have raised various concerns over the years. Minnesota did not concur with the original regulations, stressing that the State would not recognize Chippewa Indian hunting rights in Minnesota's treaty area until a court with jurisdiction over the State acknowledges and defines the extent of these rights. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the existence of the tribes' treaty reserved rights in
We acknowledge all of the States' concerns, but point out that the U.S. Government has recognized the Indian treaty reserved rights, and that acceptable hunting regulations have been successfully implemented in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Consequently, in view of the above, we have approved regulations since the 1987-88 hunting season on ceded lands in all three States. In fact, this recognition of the principle of treaty reserved rights for band members to hunt and fish was pivotal in our decision to approve a 1991-92 season for the 1836 ceded area in Michigan. Since then, in the 2007 Consent Decree, the 1836 Treaty Tribes' and Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment established court-approved regulations pertaining to off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds.
For 2017, GLIFWC proposes off-reservation special migratory bird hunting regulations on behalf of the member Tribes of the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of GLIFWC (for the 1837 and 1842 Treaty areas in Wisconsin and Michigan), the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the six Wisconsin Bands (for the 1837 Treaty area in Minnesota), and the Bay Mills Indian Community (for the 1836 Treaty area in Michigan). Member Tribes of the Task Force are: the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Band), all in Wisconsin; the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Minnesota; and the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Michigan.
The GLIFWC 2017 proposal has four changes from regulations approved last season. First, in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, the GLIFWC proposal would allow up to 50 Tribal hunters to use electronic calls for any open season under a limited and experimental design under a special Tribal permit. In addition to obtaining a special permit, the Tribal hunter would be required to complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. Second, GLIFWC also proposes to allow the take of migratory birds (primarily waterfowl) with the use of hand-held nets, hand-held snares, and/or capture birds by hand in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. The GLIWFC proposal for the use of nets, snares, or by hand would include the take of birds at night. Third, GLIFWC proposes beginning the current swan season September 1 rather than November 1 in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. However, the trumpeter swan quota would remain at 10 swans. Lastly, GLIFWC proposes the addition of a sandhill crane hunting season in the 1836 Treaty Area.
GLIFWC states that the proposed regulatory changes are intended to increase the subsistence opportunities for tribal migratory bird hunters and provide opportunities for more efficient harvesting. Under the GLIFWC's proposed regulations, GLIFWC expects total ceded territory harvest to be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 ducks, 400 to 600 geese, 20 sandhill cranes, and 20 swans, which, with the exception of ducks, is roughly similar to anticipated levels in previous years for those species for which seasons were established. GLIFWC further anticipates that tribal harvest will remain low given the small number of tribal hunters and the limited opportunity to harvest more than a small number of birds on most hunting trips.
Recent GLIFWC harvest surveys (1996-98, 2001, 2004, 2007-08, 2011, 2012, and 2015) indicate that tribal off-reservation waterfowl harvest has averaged fewer than 1,100 ducks and 250 geese annually. In the latest survey year for which we have specific results (2015), an estimated 297 hunters hunted a total of 2,190 days and harvested 2,727 ducks (1.2 ducks per day) and 639 geese. The greatest number of ducks reported harvested in a single day was 10, while the highest number of geese reported taken on a single outing was 6. Mallards, wood ducks, and blue-winged teal composed about 72 percent of the duck harvest. Two sandhill cranes were reported harvested in each of the first three Tribal sandhill crane seasons, with 3 reported harvested in 2015. No swans have been harvested. About 81 percent of the estimated hunting days took place in Wisconsin, with the remainder occurring in Michigan. As in past years, most hunting took place in or near counties with reservations. Overall, analysis of hunter survey data over 1996-2015 indicates a general downward, or flat, trend in both harvest and hunter participation. More specific discussion on each of the proposals follows below.
In the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, GLIFWC proposes allowing an experimental application of electronic calls with up to 50 Tribal hunters allowed to use the devices. Individuals using electronic calls would be required to obtain a special Tribal permit, complete a hunt diary for each hunt where the devices are used, and submit the hunt diary to the Commission within 2 weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain a permit for the following year. GLIFWC proposes to require hunters to record the date, time, and location of each hunt; the number of hunters; the number of each species harvested per hunting event; if other hunters were in the area, any interactions with other hunters; and other information GLIFWC deems appropriate. GLIFWC would then summarize the diary results and submit a report to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, GLIFWC proposes that this experimental application be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.
As we have stated over the last 6 years (76 FR 54676, September 1, 2011; 77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012; 78 FR 53218, August 28, 2013; 79 FR 52226, September 3, 2014; 80 FR 52663, September 1, 2015; 81 FR 62404, September 9, 2016), the issue of allowing electronic calls and other electronic devices for migratory game bird hunting has been highly debated and highly controversial over the last 40 years, similar to other prohibited hunting methods. Electronic calls,
In our previous responses on this issue, we have also discussed information stemming from the use of electronic calls during the special light-goose seasons and our conclusions as to its applicability to most other waterfowl species. Given available evidence on the effectiveness of electronic calls, we continue to be concerned about the large biological uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls. Additionally, given the fact that tribal waterfowl hunting covered by this proposal would occur on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes, we remain very concerned that the use of electronic calls to take waterfowl would lead to confusion on the part of the public, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials in implementing the requirements of 50 CFR part 20. Further, similar to the impacts of baiting, we have concerns on the uncertain zone of influence range from the use of electronic calls which could potentially increase harvest from nontribal hunters operating within areas that electronic calls are used during the dates of the general hunt. However, unlike baiting, once the electronic call is removed from an area, the attractant or lure is immediately removed with presumably little to no lingering effects.
Notwithstanding our above concerns, we understand and appreciate GLIFWC's position on this issue, their desire to increase tribal hunter opportunity, harvest, and participation, and the importance that GLIFWC has ascribed to these issues. We further appreciate GLIFWC's latest proposal on the issue. GLIFWC has proposed a limited use of electronic calls under an experimental design with up to only 50 Tribal hunters. Hunters would be required to obtain special permits and complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. Clearly, GLIFWC has given this issue considerable thought. In our recent discussions with them, they have willingly discussed our concerns and all the uncertainties and difficulties surrounding them. Therefore, we agree with the tribes that much of the large uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls could be potentially controlled, or significantly lessened, by this very modest experiment.
In that light, we are proposing GLIFWC's limited experimental approach with the hope of gaining some additional information and knowledge about the use of electronic calls and their effects on waterfowl. Ideally, this limited approach would include utilizing electronic calls both for Canada geese (where they may already be used in some instances) and new efforts for ducks. Important data related to tribal hunter interest, participation, effects on targeted species, and harvest would need to be closely tracked and reported, as GLIFWC has proposed. We conclude that the experimental removal of the electronic call prohibition, with the proposed limited design, would be consistent with helping address and answer some of our long-standing concerns, and thus we support GLIFWC's proposal to allow the experimental use of electronic calls in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas for any open season for a 3-year experimental period.
GLIFWC proposes that we allow the take of migratory birds (primarily waterfowl) with the use of hand-held nets, hand-held snares, and the capturing of birds by hand in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. The GLIWFC proposal for the use of nets and snares and capturing by hand would include the take of birds at night. Within the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, tribal members would be allowed to use non-mechanical, hand-operated nets (
Current regulations at 50 CFR part 20 do not allow the use of traps, nets, or snares to capture migratory game birds (see § 20.21(a)), and we are unaware of any current State regulations allowing the use of traps for the capture of resident game birds. While the use of traps or nets for birds is not generally considered a sport-hunting technique, we recognize that their use may be a customary and traditional hunting method by tribal members. Further, GLIFWC's netting and trapping proposal does not allow baiting (which could lead to concerns related to potential disease transmission) or the herding of waterfowl into traps when they are largely flightless, such as during the summer molt. Practices such as these would significantly increase our concerns. As such, and recognizing the importance GLIFWC has placed on this issue, we are not opposed to the trapping of migratory birds, especially given all the GLIFWC-proposed restrictions on their use and the fact that they will be manned at all times. Thus, we agree with the GLIFWC proposal and believe the restrictions they have proposed are appropriate to begin a 3-year experimental evaluation.
GLIFWC has conducted a swan season in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas since 2014. While the season primarily is targeted at tundra swans, trumpeter swans are legally allowed in the daily bag limit. However, all swans harvested must be registered with the Tribe by presenting the fully feathered carcass to a tribal registration station or GLIFWC warden, to confirm species. If the total number of trumpeter swans harvested reaches 10, GLIFWC closes the swan season by emergency rule. Hunters are expected to check the GLIFWC's Web site each day they hunt to determine season status. To date, no swans have been harvested. GLIFWC would like to expand the current swan season by beginning the season September 1 rather than November 1, as they believe the current regulations may too restrictive. The trumpeter swan quota would remain at 10 swans. Given the absence of any swan harvest, we agree. If, in future years, the swan season closes early due to attainment of the trumpeter swan quota before December 31, GLIFWC proposes, and we agree, to re-evaluate the earlier opening date in order to shift potential harvest back towards tundra swans.
GLIFWC proposes the addition of a sandhill crane hunting season in the 1836 Treaty Area. Currently, the State of Michigan does not offer a sandhill crane hunt season to their hunters. In the 1836 and 1842 Treaty Areas, only two sandhill cranes were reported harvested in each of the first three Tribal sandhill crane seasons, with 3 reported harvested in 2015. Given the expected relative light hunting pressure, the proposed daily bag limit of 1 sandhill crane with a seasonal bag limit of 3 cranes, and the fact that crane harvest will be monitored through Tribal-required hunter registration, we see no compelling biological reason to not approve the proposal.
The proposed 2017-18 waterfowl hunting season regulations apply to all treaty areas (except where noted) for GLIFWC as follows:
A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit.
B. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the
C. Particular regulations of note include:
1. Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
2. Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
3. There are no possession limits, with the exception of 2 swans (in the aggregate) and 25 rails (in the aggregate). For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession and custody of tribal members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as taken on reservation lands. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.
4. The baiting restrictions included in the respective section 10.05(2)(h) of the model ceded territory conservation codes will be amended to include language which parallels that in place for nontribal members as published at 64 FR 29799, June 3, 1999.
5. There are no shell limit restrictions.
6. Hunting hours are from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset, except that, within the 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories, hunters may use non-mechanical nets or snares that are operated by hand to take those birds subject to an open hunting season at any time (see #8 below for further information). Hunters shall also be permitted to capture, without the aid of other devices (
7. An experimental application of electronic calls will be implemented in the 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories. Up to 50 tribal hunters will be allowed to use electronic calls. Individuals using these devices will be required to obtain a special permit; they will be required to complete a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls are used; and they will be required to submit the hunt diary to the Commission within 2 weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain an permit for the following year. Required information will include the date, time, and location of the hunt; number of hunters; the number of each species harvested per hunting event; if other hunters were in the area, any interactions with other hunters; and other information deemed appropriate. Diary results will be summarized and documented in a Commission report, which will be submitted to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, this experimental application would be replicated for 3 years, after which a full evaluation would be completed.
8. Within the 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories, tribal members will be allowed to use non-mechanical, hand-operated nets (
We propose to approve the above GLIFWC regulations for the 2017-18 hunting season.
The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has had special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers since the 1986-87 hunting season. The Tribe owns all lands on the reservation and has recognized full wildlife management authority. In general, the proposed seasons would be more conservative than allowed by the Federal frameworks of last season and by States in the Pacific Flyway.
The Tribe proposes a 2017-18 waterfowl and Canada goose season beginning October 14, 2017, and a closing date of November 30, 2017. Daily bag and possession limits for waterfowl would be the same as Pacific Flyway States. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit for Canada geese of two. Other regulations specific to the Pacific Flyway guidelines for New Mexico would be in effect.
During the Jicarilla Game and Fish Department's 2015-16 season, estimated duck harvest was 45, which is the lowest on record. The species composition included mainly mallards, northern shovelor, gadwall, American wigeon, and teal. The estimated harvest of geese was 0 birds.
The proposed regulations are essentially the same as were established last year. The Tribe anticipates the maximum 2017-18 waterfowl harvest would be around 300 ducks and 30 geese.
We propose to approve the Tribe's requested 2017-18 hunting seasons.
The Kalispel Reservation was established by Executive Order in 1914, and currently comprises approximately 4,600 acres. The Tribe owns all Reservation land and has full management authority. The Kalispel Tribe has a fully developed wildlife program with hunting and fishing codes. The Tribe enjoys excellent wildlife management relations with the State. The Tribe and the State have an operational memorandum of understanding with emphasis on fisheries but also for wildlife.
The nontribal member seasons described below pertain to a 176-acre waterfowl management unit and 800 acres of reservation land with a guide for waterfowl hunting. The Tribe is utilizing this opportunity to rehabilitate an area that needs protection because of past land use practices, as well as to provide additional waterfowl hunting in the area. Beginning in 1996, the requested regulations also included a proposal for Kalispel-member-only migratory bird hunting on Kalispel-ceded lands within Washington, Montana, and Idaho.
For the 2017-18 migratory bird hunting seasons, the Kalispel Tribe proposes tribal and nontribal member waterfowl seasons. The Tribe requests that both duck and goose seasons open at the earliest possible date and close on the latest date under Federal frameworks.
For nontribal hunters on Tribally managed lands, the Tribe requests the seasons open at the earliest possible date and remain open, for the maximum amount of open days. Specifically, the Tribe requests a season for ducks run September 23-24, 2017, September 29-30, 2017, and from October 1, 2017, to January 8, 2018. In that period, nontribal hunters would be allowed to hunt approximately 107 days. Hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Kalispel Tribe.
For nontribal hunters on Tribally managed lands, the Tribe also requests a season for geese run September 9-10, 2017, September 16-17, 2017, and from October 1, 2017, to January 8, 2018. Total number of days should not exceed 107. Nontribal hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Tribe. Daily bag and
The Tribe reports past nontribal harvest of 1.5 ducks per day. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be similar to last year, that is, fewer than 100 geese and 200 ducks.
All other State and Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, such as use of nontoxic shot and possession of a signed migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp, would be required.
For tribal members on Kalispel-ceded lands, the Kalispel Tribe proposes season dates for ducks of October 10, 2017, through January 31, 2018, and for geese of September 10, 2017, through January 31, 2018. Daily bag and possession limits would parallel those in the Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20.
The Tribe reports that there was no tribal harvest. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be fewer than 200 birds for the season with fewer than 100 geese. Tribal members would be required to possess a signed Federal migratory bird stamp and a tribal ceded lands permit.
We propose to approve the regulations requested by the Kalispel Tribe, since these dates conform to Federal flyway frameworks for the Pacific Flyway.
The Klamath Tribe currently has no reservation, per se. However, the Klamath Tribe has reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights within its former reservation boundary. This area of former reservation, granted to the Klamaths by the Treaty of 1864, is over 1 million acres. Tribal natural resource management authority is derived from the Treaty of 1864, and carried out cooperatively under the judicially enforced Consent Decree of 1981. The parties to this Consent Decree are the Federal Government, the State of Oregon, and the Klamath Tribe. The Klamath Indian Game Commission sets the seasons. The tribal biological staff and tribal regulatory enforcement officers monitor tribal harvest by frequent bag checks and hunter interviews.
For the 2017-18 seasons, the Tribe requests proposed season dates of October 7, 2017, through January 31, 2018. Daily bag limits would be 9 for ducks, 9 for geese, and 9 for coot, with possession limits twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours would be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Steel shot is required.
Based on the number of birds produced in the Klamath Basin, this year's harvest would be similar to last year's. Information on tribal harvest suggests that more than 70 percent of the annual goose harvest is local birds produced in the Klamath Basin.
We propose to approve those 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized Tribe located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce conservation regulations. The Service and the Tribe have cooperatively established migratory bird hunting regulations since 2000.
For the 2017-18 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting on September 16 and ending December 31, 2017, and a goose season to run from September 1 through December 31, 2017. Daily bag limits for ducks would be 10, including no more than 5 pintail, 5 canvasback, and 5 black ducks. Daily bag limits for geese would be 10. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.
The annual harvest by tribal members on the Leech Lake Reservation is estimated at 250 to 500 birds.
We propose to approve the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe's requested 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting season.
The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Manistee, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season. Ceded lands are located in Lake, Mason, Manistee, and Wexford Counties. The Band proposes regulations to govern the hunting of migratory birds by Tribal members within the 1836 Ceded Territory as well as on the Band's Reservation.
For the 2017-18 season, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians proposes a duck and merganser season from September 9, 2017, through January 26, 2018. A daily bag limit of 12 ducks would include no more than 2 pintail, 2 canvasback, 3 black ducks, 3 wood ducks, 3 redheads, 6 mallards (only 2 of which may be a hen), 1 bufflehead, and 1 hooded merganser. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit.
For coots and gallinules, the Tribe proposes a September 15, 2017, through January 26, 2018, season. Daily bag limits would be five coot and five gallinule.
For white-fronted geese, snow geese, and brant, the Tribe proposes a September 8 through December 10, 2017, season. Daily bag limits would be five geese.
For Canada geese only, the Tribe proposes a September 1, 2017, through February 4, 2018, season with a daily bag limit of five. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.
For snipe, woodcock, rails, and mourning doves, the Tribe proposes a September 1 to November 12, 2017, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 common snipe, 5 woodcock, 10 rails, and 10 mourning doves. Possession limits for all species would be twice the daily bag limit.
The Tribe monitors harvest through mail surveys. General conditions are as follows:
A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal resource card and 2017-18 hunting license.
B. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel all Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20. Shooting hours will be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
C. Particular regulations of note include:
(1) Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
(2) Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.
D. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys.
We plan to approve Little River Band of Ottawa Indians' 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting seasons.
The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB) is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Petoskey, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations
For the 2017-18 season, we have not yet heard from the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. The LTBB usually proposes regulations similar to those of other Tribes in the 1836 treaty area. The LTBB usually proposes the regulations to govern the hunting of migratory birds by tribal members on the LTBB reservation and within the 1836 Treaty Ceded Territory. The tribal member duck and merganser season would usually run from September 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018. A daily bag limit of 20 ducks and 10 mergansers would include no more than 5 hen mallards, 5 pintail, 5 canvasback, 5 scaup, 5 hooded merganser, 5 black ducks, 5 wood ducks, and 5 redheads.
For Canada geese, the LTBB usually proposes a September 1, 2017, through February 8, 2018, season. The daily bag limit for Canada geese would be 20 birds. We further note that, based on available data (of major goose migration routes), it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population would be harvested by the LTBB. Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit.
For woodcock, the LTBB usually proposes a September 1 to December 1, 2017, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 10 birds. For snipe, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to December 31, 2017, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 16 birds. For mourning doves, the LTBB usually proposes a September 1 to November 14, 2017, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 15 birds. For Virginia and sora rails, the LTBB usually proposes a September 1 to December 31, 2017, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 20 birds per species. For coots and gallinules, the LTBB usually proposes a September 15 to December 31, 2017, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 20 birds per species. The possession limit will not exceed 2 days' bag limit for all birds.
The LTBB also usually proposes a sandhill crane season to begin September 1 and end December 1, 2017. The daily bag limit will not exceed one bird. The possession limit will not exceed two times the bag limit.
All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply.
Harvest surveys from 2014-15 hunting season indicated that approximately 10 hunters harvested 10 different waterfowl species totaling 69 birds. No sandhill cranes were reported harvested during the 2014-15 season. The LTBB usually proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. In particular, the LTBB usually proposes monitoring the harvest of Southern James Bay Canada geese and sandhill cranes to assess any impacts of tribal hunting on the population.
We propose to approve the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians' requested 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations, upon receipt of their proposal.
The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe first established tribal migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation in 1994. The Lower Brule Reservation is about 214,000 acres in size and is located on and adjacent to the Missouri River, south of Pierre. Land ownership on the reservation is mixed, and until recently, the Lower Brule Tribe had full management authority over fish and wildlife via a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the State of South Dakota. The MOA provided the Tribe jurisdiction over fish and wildlife on reservation lands, including deeded and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-taken lands. For the 2017-18 season, the two parties have come to an agreement that provides the public a clear understanding of the Lower Brule Sioux Wildlife Department license requirements and hunting season regulations. The Lower Brule Reservation waterfowl season is open to tribal and nontribal hunters.
For the 2017-18 migratory bird hunting season, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a nontribal member duck, merganser, and coot season length of 97 days, or the maximum number of days allowed by Federal frameworks in the High Plains Management Unit for this season. The Tribe proposes a duck season from October 7, 2017, through January 11, 2018. The daily bag limit would be six birds or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow, including no more than two hen mallard and five mallards total, two pintail, two redhead, two canvasback, three wood duck, three scaup, and one mottled duck. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only two of which could be a hooded merganser. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be three times the daily bag limits.
The Tribe's proposed nontribal-member Canada goose season would run from October 28, 2017, through February 11, 2018 (107-day season length), with a daily bag limit of six Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed nontribal member white-fronted goose season would run from October 28, 2017, through January 23, 2018, with a daily bag and possession limits concurrent with Federal regulations. The Tribe's proposed nontribal-member light goose season would run from October 28, 2017, through February 11, 2018, and February 12 through March 10, 2018. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20 or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow with no possession limits.
For tribal members, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a duck, merganser, and coot season from September 1, 2017, through March 10, 2018. The daily bag limit would be six ducks, including no more than two hen mallard and five mallards total, two pintail, two redheads, two canvasback, three wood ducks, three scaup, two bonus teal during the first 16 days of the season, and one mottled duck or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only two of which could be hooded mergansers. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be three times the daily bag limits.
The Tribe's proposed Canada goose season for tribal members would run from September 1, 2017, through March 10, 2018, with a daily bag limit of six Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed white-fronted goose tribal season would run from September 1, 2017, through March 10, 2018, with a daily bag limit of two white-fronted geese or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow. The Tribe's proposed light goose tribal season would run from September 1, 2017, through March 10, 2018. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20 or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow, with no possession limits.
In the 2013-14 season, nontribal members harvested 641 geese and 1,616 ducks. In the 2013-14 season, duck harvest species composition was primarily mallard (67 percent), gadwall (5 percent), green-winged teal (7 percent), and wigeon (5 percent).
The Tribe anticipates a duck and goose harvest similar to those of the previous years. All basic Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, including the use of nontoxic shot, Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, etc., would be observed by the Tribe's proposed regulations. In addition, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has an official Conservation Code that was established by Tribal Council Resolution in June 1982 and updated in 1996.
We plan to approve the Tribe's requested regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation if the seasons' dates fall within final Federal flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only).
Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which Lower Elwha was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes are now acting independently, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe would like to establish migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members for the 2017-18 season. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855.
For the 2017-18 season, we have yet to hear from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. The Tribe usually requests special migratory bird hunting regulations for ducks (including mergansers), geese, coots, band-tailed pigeons, snipe, and mourning doves. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe usually requests a duck and coot season from September 13, 2017, to January 4, 2018. The daily bag limit will be seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck will be one per season. The coot daily bag limit will be 25. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit, except as noted above.
For geese, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 13, 2017, to January 4, 2018. The daily bag limit will be four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese will be closed.
For brant, the Tribe usually proposes to close the season.
For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 1, 2017, to January 11, 2018, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit.
All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl.
The Tribe typically anticipates harvest to be fewer than 10 birds. Tribal reservation police and Tribal fisheries enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Service proposes to approve the special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe upon receipt of their proposal.
The Makah Indian Tribe and the Service have been cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory game birds on the Makah Reservation and traditional hunting land off the Makah Reservation since the 2001-02 hunting season. Lands off the Makah Reservation are those contained within the boundaries of the State of Washington Game Management Units 601-603.
The Makah Indian Tribe proposes a duck and coot hunting season from September 23, 2017, to January 28, 2018. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than five mallards (only two hen mallard), one canvasback, one pintail, three scaup, and one redhead. The daily bag limit for coots is 25. The Tribe has a year-round closure on wood ducks and harlequin ducks. Shooting hours for all species of waterfowl are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
For geese, the Tribe proposes that the season open on September 23, 2017, and close January 28, 2018. The daily bag limit for geese is four and one brant. The Tribe notes that there is a year-round closure on Aleutian and dusky Canada geese.
For band-tailed pigeons, the Tribe proposes that the season open September 22, 2017, and close October 23, 2017. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons is two.
The Tribe anticipates that harvest under this regulation will be relatively low since there are no known dedicated waterfowl hunters and any harvest of waterfowl or band-tailed pigeons is usually incidental to hunting for other species, such as deer, elk, and bear. The Tribe expects fewer than 50 ducks and 10 geese to be harvested during the 2017-18 migratory bird hunting season.
All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The following restrictions are also proposed by the Tribe:
(1) As per Makah Ordinance 44, only shotguns may be used to hunt any species of waterfowl. Additionally, shotguns must not be discharged within 0.25 miles of an occupied area.
(2) Hunters must be eligible, enrolled Makah tribal members and must carry their Indian Treaty Fishing and Hunting Identification Card while hunting. No tags or permits are required to hunt waterfowl.
(3) The Cape Flattery area is open to waterfowl hunting, except in designated wilderness areas, or within 1 mile of Cape Flattery Trail, or in any area that is closed to hunting by another ordinance or regulation.
(4) The use of live decoys and/or baiting to pursue any species of waterfowl is prohibited.
(5) Steel or bismuth shot only for waterfowl is allowed; the use of lead shot is prohibited.
(6) The use of dogs is permitted to hunt waterfowl.
The Service proposes to approve the Makah Indian Tribe's requested 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
Since 1985, we have established uniform migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers on the Navajo Indian Reservation (in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah). The Navajo Nation owns almost all lands on the reservation and has full wildlife management authority.
For the 2017-18 season, the Tribe requests the earliest opening dates and longest duck, mergansers, Canada geese, and coots seasons, and the same daily bag and possession limits allowed to Pacific Flyway States under final Federal frameworks for tribal and nontribal members.
For both mourning dove and band-tailed pigeons, the Navajo Nation proposes seasons of September 1 through September 30, 2017, with daily bag limits of 10 and 5, respectively. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits.
The Nation requires tribal members and nonmembers to comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter age 16 or older must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp), which must be signed in ink across the face. Special regulations established by the Navajo Nation also apply on the reservation.
The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of fewer than 500 mourning doves; fewer than 10 band-tailed pigeons; fewer than 1,000 ducks, coots, and mergansers; and
We propose to approve the Navajo Nation's 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
Since 1991-92, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin and the Service have cooperated to establish uniform regulations for migratory bird hunting by tribal and nontribal hunters within the original Oneida Reservation boundaries. Since 1985, the Oneida Tribe's Conservation Department has enforced the Tribe's hunting regulations within those original reservation limits. The Oneida Tribe also has a good working relationship with the State of Wisconsin, and the majority of the seasons and limits are the same for the Tribe and Wisconsin.
For the 2017-18 season, the Tribe submitted a proposal requesting special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, the Tribe proposal describes the general outside dates as being September 16 through December 3, 2017. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of six birds, which could include no more than six mallards (three hen mallards), six wood ducks, one redhead, two pintails, and one hooded merganser.
For geese, the Tribe requests a season between September 1 and December 31, 2017, with a daily bag limit of five Canada geese. If a quota of 500 geese is attained before the season concludes, the Tribe will recommend closing the season early.
For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between September 2 and November 5, 2017, with a daily bag and possession limit of two and four, respectively.
For mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 2 and November 5, 2017, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.
The Tribe proposes shooting hours be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must comply with all State of Wisconsin regulations, including shooting hours of one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, season dates, and daily bag limits. Tribal members and nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, with the following exceptions: Oneida members would be exempt from the purchase of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp); and shotgun capacity is not limited to three shells.
The Service proposes to approve the 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.
We are establishing uniform migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members on behalf of the Point No Point Treaty Council Tribes, consisting of the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes. The two tribes have reservations and ceded areas in northwestern Washington State and are the successors to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855. These proposed regulations will apply to tribal members both on and off reservations within the Point No Point Treaty Areas; however, the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal season dates differ only where indicated below.
For the 2017-18 season, the Point No Point Treaty Council requests special migratory bird hunting regulations for both the Jamestown S'Klallam and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes. For ducks, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2017, and close March 10, 2018, and coots would open September 13, 2017, and close February 1, 2018. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes duck and coot seasons would open from September 1, 2017, to March 10, 2018. The daily bag limit would be seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one canvasback, one pintail, two redhead, and four scoters. The daily bag limit for coots would be 14. The daily bag limit and possession limit on harlequin ducks would be one per season. The daily possession limits are double the daily bag limits except where noted.
For geese, the Point No Point Treaty Council proposes the season open on September 9, 2017, and close March 10, 2018, for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and open on September 1, 2017, and close March 10, 2018, for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The daily bag limit for geese would be four, not to include more than three light geese. The Council notes that there is a year-round closure on dusky Canada geese. For brant, the Council proposes the season open on November 9, 2017, and close January 31, 2018, for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and open on January 10 and close January 25, 2018, for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. The daily bag limit for brant would be two.
For band-tailed pigeons, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2017, and close March 10, 2018. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 13, 2017, and close January 18, 2018. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons would be two. For snipe, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2017, and close March 10, 2018. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 13, 2017, and close March 10, 2018. The daily bag limit for snipe would be eight. For mourning dove, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2017, and close January 31, 2018. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe would open September 13, 2017, and close January 18, 2018. The daily bag limit for mourning dove would be 10.
The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of fewer than 175 birds for the 2017-18 season. The tribal fish and wildlife enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these tribal regulations.
We propose to approve the Point No Point Treaty Council Tribe's requested 2017-18 special migratory bird seasons.
The Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized, self-governing Indian Tribe, located on the Isabella Reservation lands bound by Saginaw Bay in Isabella and Arenac Counties, Michigan.
In a December 1, 2016, letter, the Tribe proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, mergansers, and common snipe, the Tribe proposes outside dates as September 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 20 ducks, which could include no more than five each of the following: hen mallards; wood duck; black duck; pintail; red head; scaup; and canvasback. The merganser daily bag limit is 10, with no more than 5 hooded mergansers and 16 for common snipe.
For geese, coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail, the Tribe requests a season from September 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018. The daily bag limit for geese is 20, in the aggregate. The daily bag limit for coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail is 20 in the aggregate.
For woodcock and mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018, with daily bag limits of 10 and 25, respectively.
For sandhill crane, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018, with a daily bag limit of one.
All Saginaw Tribe members exercising hunting treaty rights are required to comply with Tribal Ordinance 11. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other regulations in 50 CFR part 20 apply, including the use of only nontoxic shot for hunting waterfowl.
The Service proposes to approve the request for 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized, self-governing Indian Tribe, distributed throughout the eastern Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Tribe has retained the right to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on the lands ceded in the Treaty of Washington (1836).
The Tribe proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, mergansers, and common snipe, the Tribe proposes outside dates as September 15 through December 31, 2017. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 20 ducks, which could include no more than 10 mallards (5 hen mallards), 5 wood duck, 5 black duck, and 5 canvasbacks. The merganser daily bag limit is 10 in the aggregate and 16 for common snipe.
For geese, teal, coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail, the Tribe requests a season from September 1 to December 31, 2017. The daily bag limit for geese is 20, in the aggregate. The daily bag limit for coot, teal, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail is 20 in the aggregate.
For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between September 2 and December 1, 2017, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.
For mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1 and November 14, 2017, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.
In 2014, the total estimated waterfowl hunters were 266. All Sault Ste. Marie Tribe members exercising hunting treaty rights within the 1836 Ceded Territory are required to submit annual harvest reports including date of harvest, number and species harvested, and location of harvest. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other regulations in 50 CFR part 20 apply, including the use of only nontoxic shot for hunting waterfowl.
The Service proposes to approve the request for 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
Almost all of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is tribally owned. The Tribes claim full wildlife management authority throughout the reservation, but the Idaho Fish and Game Department has disputed tribal jurisdiction, especially for hunting by nontribal members on reservation lands owned by non-Indians. As a compromise, since 1985, we have established the same waterfowl hunting regulations on the reservation and in a surrounding off-reservation State zone. The regulations were requested by the Tribes and provided for different season dates than in the remainder of the State. We agreed to the season dates because they would provide additional protection to mallards and pintails. The State of Idaho concurred with the zoning arrangement. We have no objection to the State's use of this zone again in the 2017-18 hunting season, provided the duck and goose hunting season dates are the same as on the reservation.
In a proposal for the 2017-18 hunting season, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes request a continuous duck (including mergansers and coots) season, with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted for Pacific Flyway States under the final Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose a duck and coot season with, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as last year, an opening date of October 7, 2017, and a closing date of January 19, 2018. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be about 7,500 ducks.
The Tribes also request a continuous goose season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 7, 2017, and a closing date of January 19, 2018. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be about 5,000 geese.
The Tribes request a common snipe season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 7, 2017, and a closing date of January 19, 2018.
Nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours, use of steel shot, and manner of taking. Special regulations established by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also apply on the reservation.
We note that the requested regulations are nearly identical to those of last year, and we propose to approve them for the 2017-18 hunting season if the seasons' dates fall within the final Federal flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only).
Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which the Skokomish Tribe was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes have been acting independently since 2005. The Skokomish Tribe has yet to send in a proposal to establish migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members for the 2017-18 season. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855.
The Skokomish Tribe usually requests a duck and coot season from September 16, 2017, to February 28, 2018. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck is one per season. The coot daily bag limit is 25. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit, except as noted above.
For geese, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 16, 2017, to February 28, 2018. The daily bag limit is four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese is closed. For brant, the Tribe usually proposes a season from November 1, 2017, to February 15, 2018, with a daily bag limit of two. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.
For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 16, 2017, to February 28, 2018, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively.
All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Skokomish Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl.
The Tribe usually anticipates harvest to be fewer than 150 birds. The Skokomish Public Safety Office enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations.
We propose to approve the Skokomish Tribe's 2017-18 migratory bird hunting season, upon receipt of their proposal.
The Spokane Tribe of Indians wishes to establish waterfowl seasons on their reservation for its membership to access as an additional resource. An established waterfowl season on the reservation will allow access to a resource for members to continue practicing a subsistence lifestyle.
The Spokane Indian Reservation is located in northeastern Washington State. The reservation comprises approximately 157,000 acres. The boundaries of the Reservation are the Columbia River to the west, the Spokane River to the south (now Lake Roosevelt), Tshimikn Creek to the east, and the 48th Parallel as the north boundary. Tribal membership comprises approximately 2,300 enrolled Spokane Tribal Members.
These proposed regulations would allow Tribal Members, spouses of Spokane Tribal Members, and first-generation descendants of a Spokane Tribal Member with a tribal permit and Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp an opportunity to utilize the reservation and ceded lands for waterfowl hunting. These regulations would also benefit tribal membership through access to this resource throughout Spokane Tribal ceded lands in eastern Washington. By Spokane Tribal Referendum, spouses of Spokane Tribal Members and children of Spokane Tribal Members not enrolled are allowed to harvest game animals within the Spokane Indian Reservation with the issuance of hunting permits.
For the 2017-18 season, we have not yet received the Tribe's proposal. The Tribe usually requests to establish duck seasons that would run from September 2, 2017, through January 31, 2018. The tribe is requesting the daily bag limit for ducks to be consistent with final Federal frameworks. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.
The Tribe usually proposes a season on geese starting September 2, 2017, and ending on January 31, 2018. The tribe is requesting the daily bag limit for geese to be consistent with final Federal frameworks. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.
Based on the quantity of requests the Spokane Tribe of Indians has received, the tribe anticipates harvest levels for the 2017-18 season for both ducks and geese to be fewer than 100 total birds, with goose harvest at fewer than 50. Hunter success will be monitored through mandatory harvest reports returned within 30 days of the season closure.
We propose to approve the Spokane Tribe's requested 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations, upon receipt of their proposal.
The Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington and the Service have cooperated since 1995, to establish special tribal migratory bird hunting regulations. These special regulations apply to tribal members on the Squaxin Island Reservation, located in western Washington near Olympia, and all lands within the traditional hunting grounds of the Squaxin Island Tribe.
For the 2017-18 season, we have yet to hear from the Squaxin Island Tribe. The Tribe usually requests to establish duck and coot seasons that would run from September 1, 2017, through January 15, 2018. The daily bag limit for ducks would be five per day and could include only one canvasback. The season on harlequin ducks is closed. For coots, the daily bag limit is 25. For snipe, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 15, 2017, and end on January 15, 2018. The daily bag limit for snipe would be eight. For band-tailed pigeon, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 1 and end on December 31, 2017. The daily bag limit would be five. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.
The Tribe usually proposes a season on geese starting September 15, 2017, and ending on January 15, 2018. The daily bag limit for geese would be four, including no more than two snow geese. The season on Aleutian and cackling Canada geese would be closed. For brant, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 1 and end on December 31, 2017. The daily bag limit for brant would be two. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.
We propose to approve the Tribe's 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations, upon receipt of their proposal.
The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. For the 2017-18 season, the Tribe requests regulations to hunt all open and unclaimed lands under the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, including their main hunting grounds around Camano Island, Skagit Flats, and Port Susan to the border of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation. Ceded lands are located in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Kings Counties, and a portion of Pierce County, Washington. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians is a federally recognized Tribe and reserves the Treaty Right to hunt (
The Tribe proposes their duck (including mergansers and coot) and goose seasons run from October 1, 2017, to March 10, 2018. The daily bag limit on ducks (including sea ducks and mergansers) is 10. The daily bag limit for coot is 25. For geese, the daily bag limit is six. The season on brant is closed. Possession limits are totals of these three daily bag limits.
The Tribe proposes the snipe seasons run from October 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018. The daily bag limit for snipe is 10. Possession limits are three times the daily bag limit.
Harvest is regulated by a punch card system. Tribal members hunting on lands under this proposal will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, which will be enforced by the Stillaguamish Tribal law enforcement. Tribal members are required to use steel shot or a nontoxic shot as required by Federal regulations.
The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of 200 ducks, 100 geese, 50 mergansers, 100 coots, and 100 snipe. Anticipated harvest needs include subsistence and ceremonial needs. Certain species may be closed to hunting for conservation purposes, and consideration for the needs of certain species will be addressed.
The Service proposes to approve the Stillaguamish Tribe's request for 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
In 1996, the Service and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community began cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is a federally recognized Indian Tribe consisting of the Swinomish, Lower Skagit, Samish, and Kikialous. The Swinomish Reservation was established by the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, and lies in the Puget Sound area north of Seattle, Washington.
For the 2017-18 season, the Tribal Community requests to establish a migratory bird hunting season on all areas that are open and unclaimed and consistent with the meaning of the treaty. The Tribe proposes their duck (including mergansers and coot) and goose seasons run from September 1, 2017, to March 9, 2018. The daily bag limit on ducks is 20. The daily bag limit for coot is 25. For geese, the daily bag limit is 10. The season on brant runs from September 1, 2017, to March 9, 2018. The daily bag limit is 5.
The Tribe proposes the snipe season run from September 1, 2017, to March 9, 2018. The daily bag limit for snipe is 15. The Tribe proposes the mourning dove season run from September 1, 2017, to March 9, 2018. The daily bag limit for mourning dove is 15. The Tribe proposes the band-tailed pigeon season run from September 1, 2017, to March 9, 2018. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeon is 3. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community requests to have no possession limits.
The Community anticipates that the regulations will result in the harvest of approximately 600 ducks and 200 geese. The Swinomish utilize a report card and permit system to monitor harvest and will implement steps to limit harvest where conservation is needed. All tribal regulations will be enforced by tribal fish and game officers.
We propose to approve these 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Tulalip Tribes are the successors in interest to the Tribes and bands signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855. The Tulalip Tribes' government is located on the Tulalip Indian Reservation just north of the City of Everett in Snohomish County, Washington. The Tribes or individual tribal members own all of the land on the reservation, and they have full wildlife management authority. All lands within the boundaries of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation are closed to nonmember hunting unless opened by Tulalip Tribal regulations.
For ducks, mergansers, coot, and snipe, the Tribe proposes seasons for tribal members from September 3, 2017, through February 28, 2018. Daily bag and possession limits would be 15 and 30 ducks, respectively, except that for blue-winged teal, canvasback, harlequin, pintail, and wood duck, the bag and possession limits would be the same as those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks. For coot, daily bag and possession limits are 25 and 50, respectively, and for snipe 8 and 16, respectively. Ceremonial hunting may be authorized by the Department of Natural Resources at any time upon application of a qualified tribal member. Such a hunt must have a bag limit designed to limit harvest only to those birds necessary to provide for the ceremony.
For geese, tribal members propose a season from September 3, 2017, through February 28, 2018. The goose daily bag and possession limits would be 10 and 20, respectively, except that the bag limits for brant, cackling Canada geese, and dusky Canada geese would be those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks.
All hunters on Tulalip Tribal lands are required to adhere to shooting hour regulations set at one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, special tribal permit requirements, and a number of other tribal regulations enforced by the Tribe. Each nontribal hunter 16 years of age and older hunting pursuant to Tulalip Tribes' Ordinance No. 67 must possess a valid Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp and a valid State of Washington Migratory Waterfowl Stamp. Each hunter must validate stamps by signing across the face.
Although the season length requested by the Tulalip Tribes appears to be quite liberal, harvest information indicates a total take by tribal and nontribal hunters of fewer than 1,000 ducks and 500 geese annually.
We propose to approve the Tulalip Tribe's request for 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. The Tribe has jurisdiction over lands within Skagit, Island, and Whatcom Counties, Washington. The Tribe issues tribal hunters a harvest report card that will be shared with the State of Washington.
For the 2017-18 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting October 1, 2017, and ending February 28, 2018. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 15 with a possession limit of 20. The Tribe requests a coot season starting October 1, 2017, and ending February 15, 2018. The coot daily bag limit is 20 with a possession limit of 30.
The Tribe proposes a goose season from October 1, 2017, to February 28, 2018, with a daily bag limit of 7 geese and a possession limit of 10. For brant, the Tribe proposes a season from November 1 to November 10, 2017, with a daily bag and possession limit of 2.
The Tribe proposes a mourning dove season between September 1 and December 31, 2017, with a daily bag limit of 12 and possession limit of 15.
The anticipated migratory bird harvest under this proposal would be 100 ducks, 5 geese, 2 brant, and 10 coots. Tribal members must have the tribal identification and tribal harvest report card on their person to hunt. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, except shooting hours would be 15 minutes before official sunrise to 15 minutes after official sunset.
We propose to approve the Tribe's 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head is a federally recognized Tribe located on the island of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. The Tribe has approximately 560 acres of land, which it manages for wildlife through its natural resources department. The Tribe also enforces its own wildlife laws and regulations through the natural resources department.
For the 2017-18 season, we have not yet heard from the Tribe. The Tribe usually proposes a duck season of October 14, 2017, through February 22, 2018. The Tribe usually proposes a daily bag limit of eight birds, which could include no more than four hen mallards, four mottled ducks, one fulvous whistling duck, four mergansers, three scaup, two hooded mergansers, three wood ducks, one canvasback, two redheads, two pintail, and four of all other species not listed. The season for harlequin ducks is usually closed. The Tribe usually
For sea ducks, the Tribe usually proposes a season between October 7, 2017, and February 22, 2018, with a daily bag limit of seven, which could include no more than one hen eider and four of any one species unless otherwise noted above.
For Canada geese, the Tribe usually requests a season between September 4 and September 21, 2017, and between October 28, 2017, and February 22, 2018, with a daily bag limit of 8 Canada geese. For snow geese, the tribe usually requests a season between September 4 and September 21, 2017, and between November 25, 2017, and February 22, 2018, with a daily bag limit of 15 snow geese.
For woodcock, the Tribe usually proposes a season between October 10 and November 23, 2017, with a daily bag limit of three. For sora and Virginia rails, the Tribe usually requests a season of September 2, 2017, through November 10, 2017, with a daily bag limit of 5 sora and 10 Virginia rails. For snipe, the Tribe usually requests a season of September 2, 2017, through December 16, 2017, with a daily bag limit of 8.
Prior to 2012, the Tribe had 22 registered tribal hunters and estimates harvest to be no more than 15 geese, 25 mallards, 25 teal, 50 black ducks, and 50 of all other species combined. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20. The Tribe requires hunters to register with the Harvest Information Program.
If we receive a proposal that matches the Tribe's usual request, we propose to approve those 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The White Earth Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized tribe located in northwest Minnesota and encompasses all of Mahnomen County and parts of Becker and Clearwater Counties. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce migratory bird regulations. The Tribe and the Service first cooperated to establish special tribal regulations in 1999.
For the 2017-18 migratory bird hunting season, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe requests a duck season to start September 9 and end December 17, 2017. For ducks, they request a daily bag limit of 10, including no more than 2 hen mallards, 2 pintail, and 2 canvasback. For mergansers, the Tribe proposes the season to start September 9 and end December 17, 2017. The merganser daily bag limit would be five, with no more than two hooded mergansers. For geese, the Tribe proposes an early season from September 1 through September 22, 2017, and a late season from September 23 through December 17, 2017. The early season daily bag limit is 10 geese, and the late season daily bag limit is 5 geese.
For coots, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2017, season with daily bag limits of 20 coots. For snipe, woodcock, rail, and mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2017, season with daily bag limits of 10, 10, 25, and 25 respectively. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontoxic shot is required.
Based on past harvest surveys, the Tribe anticipates harvest of 1,000 to 2,000 Canada geese and 1,000 to 1,500 ducks. The White Earth Reservation Tribal Council employs four full-time conservation officers to enforce migratory bird regulations.
We propose to approve the Tribe's 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The White Mountain Apache Tribe owns all reservation lands, and the Tribe has recognized full wildlife management authority. As in past years, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has requested regulations that are essentially unchanged from those agreed to since the 1997-98 hunting season.
The hunting zone for waterfowl is restricted and is described as: The length of the Black River west of the Bonito Creek and Black River confluence and the entire length of the Salt River forming the southern boundary of the reservation; the White River, extending from the Canyon Day Stockman Station to the Salt River; and all stock ponds located within Wildlife Management Units 4, 5, 6, and 7. Tanks located below the Mogollon Rim, within Wildlife Management Units 2 and 3, will be open to waterfowl hunting during the 2017-18 season. The length of the Black River east of the Black River/Bonito Creek confluence is closed to waterfowl hunting. All other waters of the reservation would be closed to waterfowl hunting for the 2017-18 season.
For nontribal and tribal hunters, the Tribe proposes a continuous duck, coot, merganser, gallinule, and moorhen hunting season, with an opening date of October 14, 2017, and a closing date of January 28, 2018. The season on scaup would open November 4, 2017, and end January 28, 2018. The Tribe proposes a daily duck (including mergansers) bag limit of seven, which may include no more than two redheads, two pintail, three scaup (when open), seven mallards (including no more than two hen mallards), and two canvasback. The daily bag limit for coots, gallinules, and moorhens would be 25, singly or in the aggregate.
For geese, the Tribe proposes a season from October 14, 2017, through January 28, 2018. Hunting would be limited to Canada geese, and the daily bag limit would be three.
Season dates for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would start September 1, and end September 15, 2017, in Wildlife Management Unit 10 and all areas south of Y-70 and Y-10 in Wildlife Management Unit 7, only. Proposed daily bag limits for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would be 3 and 10, respectively.
Possession limits for the above species are twice the daily bag limits. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. There would be no open season for sandhill cranes, rails, and snipe on the White Mountain Apache lands under this proposal.
A number of special regulations apply to tribal and nontribal hunters, which may be obtained from the White Mountain Apache Tribe Game and Fish Department.
We plan to approve the White Mountain Apache Tribe's requested 2017-18 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in the preamble of a final rule.
Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the May 30 rule; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our May 30, 2017, final rule (82 FR 24786):
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration;
• Endangered Species Act Consideration;
• Regulatory Flexibility Act;
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;
• Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
• Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, 13563, and 13771.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2017-18 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of petition to ban imports through emergency rulemaking; request for information and comments.
NMFS announces receipt of a petition for emergency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Animal Welfare Institute petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and other relevant Departments to initiate emergency rulemaking under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), to ban importation of commercial fish or products from fish that have been caught with commercial fishing technology that results in incidental mortality or serious injury of vaquita in excess of United States standards.
Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 21, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0097, by either of the following methods:
1.
2.
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe portable document file (PDF) formats only. The complete text of the petition is available via the internet at the following web address:
Nina Young, NMFS F/IS at
Section 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2), states that: “The Secretary of the Treasury shall ban the importation of commercial fish or products from fish which have been caught with commercial fishing technology which results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of United States standards.” In August 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 54390; August 15, 2016) implementing the fish and fish product import provisions in section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA. This rule established conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory programs to address incidental and intentional mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in fisheries operated by nations that export fish and fish products to the United States. In that rule, NMFS stated that it may consider emergency rulemaking to ban imports of fish and fish products from an export or exempt fishery having or likely to have an immediate and significant adverse impact on a marine mammal stock.
NMFS received the petition on May 18, 2017. The petition alleges that the Secretaries of Commerce and other relevant Federal Departments are required to carry out non-discretionary
As support for the need for this action, the petition cites reports from the Comité Internacional para la Recuperación de la Vaquita (CIRVA) documenting a 95 percent decline in the vaquita population over the last two decades. The petitioners also assert that for the vaquita, gillnet bycatch has driven the species from a population of more than 700 in 1990 to currently fewer than 30 vaquita.
The petitioners maintain that any fishery using gillnets in the Upper Gulf of California violates U.S. standards under the MMPA. The petitioners provide a list of more than 30 fish species potentially harvested by gillnets including corvina and Pacific sierra, which are currently exempt from the Mexican regulations banning the use of gillnets.
On June 30, 2017, Mexico adopted a permanent ban on the use of gillnets throughout the range of vaquita, with the exception of gillnet fisheries for corvina and Pacific sierra. The regulations also prohibit night fishing, establish sites for disembarkation, and require the use of vessel monitoring systems
NMFS will consider public comments in evaluating the request by the petitioners for an import ban. In addition to general comments on the petition, NMFS specifically requests comments on:
• The adequacy of existing measures regulating commercial fishing throughout the range of the vaquita;
• Whether such measures can be considered comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program;
• Whether the apparent decline in the vaquita population attributed to interaction with commercial fishing meets the standard of “immediate and significant adverse impact on a marine mammal stock” within the MMPA; and
• Which specific fisheries are, or may be, directly associated with potential mortality of vaquita and therefore fall within the scope of the petition for emergency action.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 17B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico U.S. Waters (FMP), for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 17B includes actions to define the aggregate maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and aggregate optimum yield (OY) for the Gulf shrimp fishery, determine a minimum number of Federal commercial vessel moratorium permits in the fishery, would allow for the creation of a Federal Gulf shrimp reserve pool permit when certain conditions are met, and would allow for non-federally permitted shrimping vessels to transit through the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with shrimp on board the vessel. The purpose of Amendment 17B is to protect federally managed Gulf shrimp stocks while maintaining catch efficiency, economic efficiency, and stability in the fishery.
Written comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments on Amendment 17B, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0040” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 17B, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Frank Helies, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMP being revised by Amendment 17B was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
From 2003 to 2006, the Gulf shrimp fishery experienced significant economic losses, primarily as a result of high fuel costs and reduced prices caused by competition with imports. These economic losses contributed to a reduction in the number of vessels in the fishery, and consequently, a reduction of commercial effort. During that time, commercial vessels in the Gulf shrimp fishery were required to
During the development of Amendment 17A, the Council identified several other issues with the Gulf shrimp fishery that it wanted to address. First, MSY and OY (equal to MSY), are defined individually for the three penaeid shrimp species and for royal red shrimp. Second, the number of moratorium permits has continued to decline, and the Council is concerned that the decline in total permits will continue indefinitely. Finally, transit through Federal waters (Gulf EEZ) shrimp on board currently requires a moratorium permit, which limits the ability of a state-registered vessel to navigate in certain areas of the Gulf while engaged in shrimping. Amendment 17B addresses these issues through revisions to management reference points and the Gulf shrimp permit program.
Amendment 17B includes actions to define the aggregate MSY and aggregate OY for Gulf shrimp, determine a minimum number of Federal commercial vessel moratorium permits in the fishery, allow for the creation of a Federal Gulf shrimp reserve pool permit when certain conditions are met, and allow non-federally permitted shrimping vessels to transit through the Gulf EEZ.
After extending the duration of the Gulf shrimp moratorium permit program for another 10 years, and recognizing that the moratorium results in a passive loss of permits from the fishery, the Council decided to determine an appropriate minimum number of moratorium permits. To facilitate this determination, the Council decided to establish an aggregate MSY and OY for the federal Gulf shrimp fishery. In Amendment 15 to the FMP, the Council established species specific MSYs and OYs for penaeid shrimp. MSY and OY were established for royal red shrimp in the original FMP (46 FR 27489, May 20, 1981). Additionally, Amendment 13 to the FMP revised the MSY and OY for royal red shrimp (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). However, the shrimp permit is not species specific and an aggregate MSY and OY for all federally managed shrimp species (penaeid and royal red) can be used as reference points for the shrimp fishery as whole.
In March 2016, the Council convened a working group to determine the appropriate aggregate MSY and aggregate OY for the Gulf shrimp fishery in Federal waters. To determine the aggregate MSY, the working group used the same general approach established by a 2006 working group but included the most recent years of catch and effort data (1990-2014). The working group also determined that there were four important factors to consider when establishing aggregate OY: Landings, catch per unit effort (CPUE), sea turtle bycatch threshold, and juvenile red snapper bycatch. The working group concluded that the predicted effort and associated landings in 2009, balanced all of these criteria relative to observed levels in other years.
Amendment 17B would establish an aggregate MSY for the Federal Gulf shrimp fishery using the method developed by the working group at 112,531,374 lb (51,043,373 kg), tail weight. Amendment 17B would also establish an aggregate OY for the Gulf shrimp fishery equal to 85,761,596 lb (38,900,806 kg), tail weight, which is the aggregate MSY reduced by the ecological, social, and economic factors described above.
Currently, moratorium permits are valid for 1 year and are required to be renewed annually. If the permit is not renewed within 1 year of its expiration date, the permit is no longer renewable and is terminated. A terminated permit cannot be reissued by NMFS and is lost to the fishery. As of December 31, 2016, there were 1,441 moratorium permits that were valid or renewable. Since the start of the permit moratorium, a total of 493 moratorium permits have been terminated because they were not renewed within the required renewal period.
When the number of moratorium permits reaches 1,175 valid or renewable permits, the Council would form a panel to review details of a Gulf shrimp reserve permit pool and consider options regarding the reserve pool permits. The panel would consist of the Council's Shrimp Advisory Panel members, Science and Statistical Committee members, NMFS, and Council staff. This panel could make recommendations about how to utilize a Gulf shrimp vessel permit reserve pool.
As described in Amendment 17B, when the number of valid or renewable moratorium permits reaches 1,072, then any moratorium permits that are not renewed within 1 year of expiration would be converted to a Gulf shrimp reserve pool permit. This number is based on the predicted number of active permitted vessels needed to attain aggregate OY in the offshore fishery. As explained above, the aggregate OY accounts for relatively high CPUE and landings while reducing the risk of exceeding sea turtle and juvenile red snapper bycatch. As described in Amendment 17B, it is estimated that it could take up to 24 years to reach the threshold value of 1,072 valid or renewable moratorium permits. Therefore, any Gulf shrimp reserve pool permit that is created would not be issued until eligibility requirements are developed by the Council and implemented through subsequent rulemaking. Based on future Council action, Gulf shrimp reserve pool permits could be used as a method to allow new entrants into the fishery or allow persons who previously held a moratorium permit to re-enter the fishery.
Amendment 17B does not actively removes any Gulf shrimp moratorium permits. The minimum threshold is only for purposes of monitoring changes in fishery participation and determining if additional management measures should be established.
Currently, to possess Gulf shrimp in the Gulf EEZ, a vessel must have been issued a moratorium permit. In the Gulf, there are some areas where state-only licensed shrimpers would like to transit with shrimp on board from state waters through Federal waters to return to state waters and port. However, because these state-licensed shrimping vessels do not possess a moratorium permit, they cannot legally transit through the Gulf EEZ while possessing shrimp. This results in some of these vessels spending increased time at sea and incurring additional fuel costs because of longer transit times.
Amendment 17B would allow a vessel possessing Gulf shrimp to transit the Gulf EEZ without a valid moratorium permit if fishing gear is appropriately stowed. Transit would be defined as non-stop progression through the area; fishing gear appropriately stowed would mean trawl doors and nets must be out of the water and the bag straps must be
A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 17B has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Council has submitted Amendment 17B for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 17B must be received by October 23, 2017. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment and will be addressed in the final rule.
All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This proposed rule would establish quotas, opening dates, and retention limits for the 2018 fishing season for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries. Quotas would be adjusted as required or allowable based on any over- and/or underharvests experienced during 2017 and previous fishing seasons. In addition, NMFS proposes season opening dates and commercial retention limits based on adaptive management measures to provide, to the extent practicable, fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas. The proposed measures could affect fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.
Written comments must be received by September 21, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0069, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of this proposed rule and supporting documents are available from the HMS Management Division Web site at
Guý DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at 301-427-8503.
The Atlantic commercial shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. For the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments established, among other things, commercial shark retention limits, commercial quotas for species and management groups, accounting measures for under- and overharvests for the shark fisheries, and adaptive management measures such as flexible opening dates for the fishing season and inseason adjustments to shark trip limits, which provide management flexibility in furtherance of equitable fishing opportunities, to the extent practicable, for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas.
This proposed rule would adjust the quota levels for the different shark stocks and management groups for the 2018 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season based on over- and underharvests that occurred during 2017 and previous fishing seasons, consistent with existing regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(b). Over- and underharvests are accounted for in the same region, sub-region, and/or fishery in which they occurred the following year, except that large overharvests may be spread over a number of subsequent fishing years up to a maximum of 5 years. Shark stocks or management groups that contain one or more stocks that are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, will not have underharvest carried over in the following year. Stocks that are not overfished and have no overfishing occurring may have any underharvest carried over in the following year, up to 50 percent of the base quota.
The quotas in this proposed rule are based on dealer reports received as of July 14, 2017. In the final rule, NMFS will adjust the quotas as needed based on dealer reports received as of a date in mid-October 2017. Thus, all of the 2018 proposed quotas for the respective stocks and management groups will be subject to further adjustment after NMFS considers the dealer reports through mid-October. All dealer reports that are received after the October date will be used to adjust the 2019 quotas, as appropriate.
For the sandbar shark, aggregated large coastal share (LCS), hammerhead shark, non-blacknose small coastal share (SCS), blacknose shark, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and pelagic shark (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) management groups, the 2017 underharvests cannot be carried over to the 2018 fishing season because those stocks or management groups have been determined to be overfished, overfished with overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status. Thus, for all of these management groups, the 2018 proposed quotas would be equal to the applicable base quota minus any overharvests that occurred in 2017 and/or previous fishing seasons, as applicable.
Because the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group and smoothhound shark management groups in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions have been determined not to be overfished and to have no overfishing occurring, available underharvest (up to 50 percent of the base quota) from the 2017 fishing season for these management groups may be applied to the respective 2018 quotas, and NMFS proposes to do so.
The proposed 2018 quotas by species and management group are summarized in Table 1; the description of the calculations for each stock and management group can be found below.
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for blacktip sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 347.2 mt dw (765,392 lb dw) and the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 37.7 mt dw (83,158 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings for blacktip sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 62 percent (206.6 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (331.6 mt dw), while the blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 43 percent (15.3 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (36.0 mt dw). Reported landings have not exceeded the 2017 quota to
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for aggregated LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 72.0 mt dw (158,724 lb dw) and the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 85.5 mt dw (188,593 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings for aggregated LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 91 percent (65.8 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (72.0 mt dw), while the aggregated LCS in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 49 percent (42.0 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (85.5 mt dw). Reported landings have not exceeded the 2017 quota to date, and the western aggregated LCS sub-region fishery was closed on May 2, 2017 (82 FR 20447). Given the unknown status of some of the shark species within the Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS management group, underharvests cannot be carried over pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes that the 2018 quotas for aggregated LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions be equal to their annual base quotas without adjustment, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
In the Gulf of Mexico, hammerhead shark quotas are divided into two sub-regions: Western and eastern. The 2018 proposed commercial quotas for hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region are 11.9 mt dw (23,301 lb dw) and 13.4 mt dw (29,421 lb dw), respectively. As of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings for hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 24 percent (2.5 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (11.9 mt dw), while landings of hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 48 percent (6.4 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (13.4 mt dw). Reported landings have not exceeded the 2017 quota to date, and the western hammerhead shark sub-region fishery was closed on May 2, 2017 (82 FR 20447). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), at this time, NMFS proposes that the 2018 quotas for hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions be equal to their annual base quotas without adjustment, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region is 112.6 mt dw (248,215 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings of non-blacknose SCS were at 32 percent (36.2 mt dw) of their 2017 quota level (112.6 mt dw) in the Gulf of Mexico region. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2017 quota to date. Given the unknown status of bonnethead sharks within the Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS management group, underharvests cannot be carried forward pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes that the 2018 quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for smoothhound sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region is 504.6 mt dw (1,112,441 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, there are no preliminary reported landings of smoothhound sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region. Gulf of Mexico smoothhound sharks have not been declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown status. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii), underharvests for smoothhound sharks within the Gulf of Mexico region therefore could be applied to the 2018 quotas up to 50 percent of the base quota. Accordingly, NMFS proposes to increase the 2018 Gulf of Mexico smoothhound shark quota to adjust for anticipated underharvests in 2017 as allowed. The proposed 2018 adjusted base annual quota for Gulf of Mexico smoothhound sharks is 504.6 mt dw (1,112,441 lb dw) (336.4 mt dw annual base quota + 168.2 mt dw 2017 underharvest = 504.6 mt dw 2018 adjusted annual quota).
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for aggregated LCS in the Atlantic region is 168.9 mt dw (372,552 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, the aggregated LCS fishery in the Atlantic region is still open and preliminary landings indicate that only 33 percent of the quota, or 55.2 mt dw (121,791 lb dw), has been harvested. Given the unknown status of some of the shark species within the Atlantic aggregated LCS management group, underharvests cannot be carried over pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes that the 2018 quota for aggregated LCS in the Atlantic region be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment, because there have not been any overharvests and underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic region is 27.1 mt dw (59,736 lb dw). Currently, the hammerhead shark fishery in the Atlantic region is still open and preliminary landings as of July 14, 2017, indicate that only 18 percent of the quota, or 5.0 mt dw (10,973 lb dw), has been harvested. Given the overfished status of hammerhead sharks, underharvests cannot be carried forward pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes that the 2018 quota for hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic region be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region is 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings of non-blacknose SCS were at 23 percent (60.9 mt dw) of their 2017 quota level (264.1 mt dw) in the Atlantic region. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2017 quota to date. Given the unknown status of bonnethead sharks within the Atlantic non-blacknose SCS management group, underharvests cannot be carried forward pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes that the 2018 quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for blacknose sharks in the Atlantic region is 17.2 mt dw (37,921 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings of blacknose sharks were at 30 percent (5.2 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (17.2 mt dw) in the Atlantic region. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2017 quota to date. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2), because blacknose sharks have been declared to be overfished with overfishing occurring in the Atlantic region, NMFS could not carry forward the remaining underharvest. Therefore, NMFS proposes that the 2018 Atlantic blacknose shark quota be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment. (
The 2018 proposed commercial quota for smoothhound sharks in the Atlantic region is 1,802.6 mt dw (3,973,902 lb dw). As of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings of smoothhound sharks were at 9 percent (166.9 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (1,802.6 mt dw) in the Atlantic region. Atlantic smoothhound sharks have not been declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown status. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii), underharvests for smoothhound sharks within the Atlantic region therefore could be applied to the 2018 quotas up to 50 percent of the base quota. Accordingly, NMFS proposes to increase the 2018 Atlantic smoothhound shark quota to adjust for anticipated underharvests in 2017 as allowed. The proposed 2018 adjusted base annual quota for Atlantic smoothhound sharks is 1,802.6 mt dw (1,323,862 lb dw) (1,201.7 mt dw annual base quota + 600.9 mt dw 2017 underharvest = 1,802.6 mt dw 2018 adjusted annual quota).
The 2018 proposed commercial quotas within the shark research fishery are 50.0 mt dw (110,230 lb dw) for research LCS and 90.7 mt dw (199,943 lb dw) for sandbar sharks. Within the shark research fishery, as of July 14, 2017, preliminary reported landings of research LCS were at 20 percent (10.1 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (50.0 mt dw), and sandbar shark reported landings were at 42 percent (38.4 mt dw) of their 2017 quota levels (27.1 mt dw). Reported landings have not exceeded the 2017 quotas to date. Under § 635.27(b)(2)(ii), because sandbar sharks and scalloped hammerhead sharks within the research LCS management group have been determined to be either overfished or overfished with overfishing occurring, underharvests for these management groups cannot be carried forward to the 2018 quotas. Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes that the 2018 quota in the shark research fishery be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
The 2018 proposed commercial quotas for blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) are 273 mt dw (601,856 lb dw), 1.7 mt dw (3,748 lb dw), and 488 mt dw (1,075,856 lb dw), respectively. As of July 14, 2017, there are no preliminary reported landings of porbeagle sharks. The preliminary reported landings of blue sharks were at less than 1 percent (less than 2.3 mt dw) of their 2017 quota level (273.0 mt dw), while preliminary reported landings of pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) were at 13 percent (64.9 mt dw) of their 2017 quota level (488.0 mt dw). Given that these pelagic species are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, underharvests cannot be carried forward pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii). Therefore, based on preliminary estimates and consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2), NMFS proposes that the 2018 quotas for blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) be equal to their annual base quotas without adjustment, because there have not been any overharvests and because underharvests cannot be carried over due to stock status.
For each fishery, NMFS considered the seven “Opening Commercial Fishing Season Criteria” listed at § 635.27(b)(3). The “Opening Fishing Season” criteria consider factors such as the available annual quotas for the current fishing season, estimated season length and average weekly catch rates from previous years, length of the season and fishermen participation in past years, impacts to accomplishing objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, temporal variation in behavior or biology target species (
Specifically, as described above and below, NMFS examined the 2017 and previous fishing years' over- and/or underharvests of the different management groups to determine the effects of the 2018 proposed commercial quotas on the shark stocks and fishermen across regional and sub-regional fishing areas. NMFS also examined the potential season length and previous catch rates to ensure, to the extent practicable, that equitable fishing opportunities be provided to fishermen in all areas. Lastly, NMFS examined the seasonal variation of the different species/management groups and the effects on fishing opportunities.
As described below, NMFS also considered the six “Inseason trip limit adjustment criteria” listed at § 635.24(a)(8) for directed shark limited access permit holders intending to land LCS other than sandbar sharks. Those criteria are: The amount of remaining shark quota in the relevant area or region, to date, based on dealer reports; the catch rates of the relevant shark species/complexes, to date, based on dealer reports; estimated date of fishery closure based on when the landings are projected to reach 80 percent of the quota given the realized catch rates; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of the relevant shark species based on scientific and fishery-based knowledge; and/or effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region
After considering these criteria, NMFS is proposing that the 2018 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season for all shark management groups in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, open on or about January 1, 2018, after the publication of the final rule for this action (Table 2). NMFS is also proposing to start the 2018 commercial shark fishing season with the commercial retention limit of 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, 50 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and 25 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in the Atlantic region (Table 2). However, at the time of writing this proposed rule, some management groups remain open and, for those management groups that are already closed, landings are still being calculated and checked for quality control and assurance. Thus, NMFS may implement different opening dates and commercial retention limits in the final rule if there are underharvested quotas or quota exceedances in 2017 that are not accounted for in this proposed rule.
In the Gulf of Mexico region, we are opening the fishing season on or about January 1, 2018, for the aggregated LCS, blacktip sharks, and hammerhead shark management groups with the commercial retention limits of 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip for directed shark permit holders in the western sub-region—and 50 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip for directed shark permit holders in the eastern sub-region. This would provide, to the extent practicable, equitable opportunities across the fisheries management sub-regions. This opening date takes into account all the season opening criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(3), and particularly the criteria that NMFS consider the length of the season for the different species and/or management group in the previous years (§ 635.27(b)(3)(ii) and (iii)) and whether fishermen were able to participate in the fishery in those years (§ 635.27(b)(3)(v)). The proposed commercial retention limits take into account the criteria listed in § 635.24(a)(8), and particularly the criterion that NMFS consider the catch rates of the relevant shark species/complexes based on dealer reports to date (§ 635.24(a)(8)(ii)). Similar to the retention limit adjustment process described for the Atlantic region, NMFS may consider adjusting the retention limit in the Gulf of Mexico region throughout the season to ensure fishermen in all parts of the region have an opportunity to harvest aggregated
In the Atlantic region, NMFS proposes opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups on or about January 1, 2018. This opening date is the same date that these management groups opened in 2017. As described below, this opening date also takes into account all the criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(3), and particularly the criterion that NMFS consider the effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the different species and/or management quotas (§ 635.27(b)(3)(v)). In 2017, the data indicate that an opening date of January 1 provided a reasonable opportunity for every part of each region to harvest a portion of the available quotas (§ 635.27(b)(3)(i)) while accounting for variations in seasonal distribution of the different species in the management groups (§ 635.27(b)(3)(iv)). When the aggregated LCS quota was harvested too quickly to allow fishermen in the North Atlantic area an opportunity to fish, NMFS reduced the retention limit to three sharks per trip on April 13, 2017 (82 FR 17765). NMFS then increased the retention limit to 36 sharks per trip on July 16, 2017 (82 FR 32490), to allow for equitable fishing opportunities across the Atlantic region. Because the quotas in 2018 are proposed to be the same as the quotas in 2017, NMFS expects that the season lengths and therefore the participation of various fishermen throughout the region, would be similar in 2018 (§ 635.27(b)(3)(ii) and (iii)). Based on the recent performance of the fishery, the January 1 opening date appears to be meet the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments (§ 635.27(b)(3)(vi)). Therefore, there is no information that indicates changing the opening date is necessary.
In addition, for the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region, NMFS is proposing that the commercial retention trip limit for directed shark limited access permit holders on the proposed opening date be 25 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. This retention limit should allow fishermen to harvest some of the 2018 quota at the beginning of the year when sharks are more prevalent in the South Atlantic area (see the criteria at § 635.24(a)(3)(i), (ii), (v), and (vi)). As was done in 2017, if it appears that the quota is being harvested too quickly (
Also, as was done in 2017, NMFS will consider increasing the commercial retention limits per trip at a later date if necessary to provide fishermen in the northern portion of the Atlantic region an opportunity to retain aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks after considering the appropriate inseason adjustment criteria. Similarly, at some point later in the year (
All of the shark management groups would remain open until December 31, 2018, or until NMFS determines that the fishing season landings for any shark management group have reached, or are projected to reach, 80 percent of the available quota. If NMFS determines that a non-linked shark species or management group must be closed, then, consistent with § 635.28(b)(2) for non-linked quotas (
If NMFS determines that a linked shark species or management group must be closed, then, consistent with § 635.28(b)(3) for linked quotas, NMFS will publish in the
Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS determined that the final rules to implement Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (June 24, 2008, 73 FR 35778; corrected on July 15, 2008, 73 FR 40658), Amendment 5a to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (78 FR 40318; July 3, 2013), Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 50073; August 18, 2015), and Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 73128; November 24, 2015) are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of coastal states on the Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea as required under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.41(a), NMFS provided the Coastal Zone Management Program of each coastal state a 60-day period to review the consistency determination and to advise the Agency of their concurrence. NMFS received concurrence with the consistency determinations from several states and inferred consistency from those states that did not respond within the 60-day time period. This proposed action to establish opening dates and adjust quotas for the 2018 fishing season for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries does not change the framework previously consulted upon; therefore, no additional consultation is required.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA analysis follows.
Section 603(b)(1) of the RFA requires agencies to explain the purpose of the rule. This rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, is being proposed to establish the 2018 commercial shark fishing quotas, retention limits, and fishing seasons. Without this rule, the commercial shark fisheries would close on December 31, 2017, and would not open until another action was taken. This proposed rule would be implemented according to the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. Thus, NMFS expects few, if any, economic impacts to fishermen other than those already analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, based on the quota adjustments.
Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires agencies to explain the rule's objectives. The objectives of this rule are to: Adjust the baseline quotas for all Atlantic shark management groups based on any over- and/or underharvests from the previous fishing year(s); establish the opening dates of the various management groups; and establish the retention limits for the blacktip shark, aggregated large coastal shark, and hammerhead shark management groups in order to provide, to the extent practicable, equitable opportunities across the fishing management regions and/or sub-regions while also considering the ecological needs of the different shark species.
Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the
As of July 2017, the proposed rule would apply to the approximately 206 directed commercial shark permit holders, 244 incidental commercial shark permit holders, 142 smoothhound shark permit holders, and 112 commercial shark dealers. Not all permit holders are active in the fishery in any given year. Active directed commercial shark permit holders are defined as those with valid permits that landed one shark based on HMS electronic dealer reports. Of the 450 directed and incidental commercial shark permit holders, only 28 permit holders landed sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region and only 78 landed sharks in the Atlantic region. Of the 142 smoothhound shark permit holders, only 26 permit holders landed
This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule would not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements as domestically implemented, domestic laws, and FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Section 603(c) of the RFA requires each IRFA to contain a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities. In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities affected are considered small entities; therefore, there are no alternatives discussed that fall under the first, second, and fourth categories described above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act; therefore, there are no alternatives considered under the third category.
This rulemaking does not establish management measures to be implemented, but rather implements previously adopted and analyzed measures with adjustments, as specified in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and the Environmental Assessment (EA) that accompanied the 2011 shark quota specifications rule (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010). Thus, NMFS proposes to adjust quotas established and analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments by subtracting the underharvest or adding the overharvest as allowable. Thus, NMFS has limited flexibility to modify the quotas in this rule, the impacts of which were analyzed in previous regulatory flexibility analyses.
Based on the 2016 ex-vessel price, fully harvesting the unadjusted 2018 Atlantic shark commercial baseline quotas could result in total fleet revenues of $7,779,285 (see Table 3). For the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group, NMFS is proposing to increase the baseline sub-regional quotas due to the underharvests in 2017. The increase for the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group could result in a $218,647 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region, while the increase for the eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group could result in a $32,902 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region. For the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic smoothhound shark management groups, NMFS is proposing to increase the baseline quotas due to the underharvest in 2017. This would cause a potential gain in revenue of $581,718 for the fleet in the Gulf of Mexico region and a potential gain in revenue of $1,083,926 for the fleet in the Atlantic region.
All of these changes in gross revenues are similar to the changes in gross revenues analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. The final regulatory flexibility analyses for those amendments concluded that the economic impacts on these small entities are expected to be minimal. In the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and the EA for the 2011 shark quota specifications rule, NMFS stated it would be conducting annual rulemakings and considering the potential economic impacts of adjusting the quotas for under- and overharvests at that time.
For this rule, NMFS also reviewed the criteria at § 635.27(b)(3) to determine when opening each fishery would provide equitable opportunities for fishermen, to the extent practicable, while also considering the ecological needs of the different species. The opening dates of the fishing season(s) could vary depending upon the available annual quota, catch rates, and number of fishing participants during the year. For the 2018 fishing season, NMFS is proposing to open all of the shark management groups on the effective date of the final rule for this action (expected to be on or about January 1). The direct and indirect economic impacts would be neutral on a short- and long-term basis because NMFS is not proposing to change the opening dates of these fisheries from the status quo.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement Amendment 48 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) and a regulatory amendment to revise regulations implementing the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Program and the Crab Rationalization (CR) Program. This proposed rule would revise how NMFS determines the amount of limited access privileges held and used by groups in the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (CDQ Program) for the purposes of managing the excessive share limits under the AFA Program and the CR Program. This proposed rule is necessary to align regulations and the Crab FMP to be consistent with an amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and NMFS' current method of managing excessive share limits for CDQ groups in the AFA Program and the CR Program. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Crab FMP, and other applicable law.
Submit comments on or before September 21, 2017.
Submit comments, identified by docket number NOAA-NMFS-2017-0038, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed action are available from
The CR Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), RIR, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as well as the AFA Program EIS and RIR, are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the pollock fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP). NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S. EEZ of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Crab FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the BSAI FMP and the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
A notice of availability for Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP was published in the
This proposed rule would modify regulations that specify how NMFS determines holding and use of limited access privileges (LAPs) for the purposes of managing excessive share limits for CDQ groups under the AFA Program and the CR Program. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to establish excessive share limits to prevent excessive consolidation of harvesting and processing LAPs in order to maintain an appropriate distribution of economic and social benefits for fishery participants and communities. NMFS has adopted regulations under its LAP programs to ensure that no person holds or uses more LAPs than authorized under excessive share limits established for each LAP program. Section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describes the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (CDQ Program) (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)). Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2 define the term “CDQ group” as an entity identified as eligible for the CDQ Program under 16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(D).
This proposed rule would revise the regulations that prescribe the calculation of excessive share limits for CDQ groups for two LAP programs: The AFA Program and the CR Program. CDQ groups participate in LAP programs, including the AFA and the CR Program, by purchasing harvesting and processing privileges and through ownership of vessels and processors that participate in these fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended by the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241; the Coast Guard Act) to specify the method that NMFS must use for monitoring excessive share limits as they apply to CDQ groups—the proportional or “individual and collective” rule. Section 305(i)(1)(F)(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the Coast Guard Act, provides that CDQ groups shall be subject to any excessive share ownership, harvesting, or processing limitations in the fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area only to the extent of the CDQ group's proportional ownership (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(F)(i)).
NMFS has implemented in practice the method specified in the 2006 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act for CDQ groups to monitor excessive share limits in the AFA Program and the CR Program; however, the regulations for the AFA Program and the CR Program and the Crab FMP have not been revised to be consistent with the 2006 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The following sections describe (1) excessive share limits, which are also called holding and use caps, (2) AFA Program use caps, (3) CR Program holding and use caps, (4) CDQ Program holding and use caps, and (5) this proposed rule and the anticipated effects of the action.
Section 301(a)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that if conservation and management measures allocate or assign fishing privileges, the measures must be carried out so that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(4)). Section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires regional fishery management councils to establish excessive share limits for LAP programs to prevent excessive accumulation of privileges by participants in the LAP programs (16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(D)). The intent of these limits or caps is to prevent excessive consolidation in the harvesting and processing sectors in order to maintain an appropriate distribution of economic and social benefits for fishery participants and communities. Because determination of excessive shares must consider the specific circumstances of each fishery, the Council has implemented different excessive share limits in the LAP programs in Alaska's fisheries, including the AFA and CR Programs.
NMFS implemented use caps for the AFA Program in 2002 (67 FR 79692; December 30, 2002) and holding and use caps for the CR Program in 2005 (70 FR 10174; March 2, 2005). The regulations prohibit a person from using more than the harvesting and processing limits established in the AFA Program and from holding and using more than a specific portion of the LAPs allocated under the CR Program. Under 50 CFR 679.2, “person” includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, and other non-individual entities. To monitor holdings and use of LAPs, NMFS determines what portion of a program's harvesting and processing privileges a person holds and uses to ensure that no person holds or uses more privileges than authorized by the applicable excessive share cap.
NMFS determines a person's holding and use of a LAP in the AFA Program and CR Program by summing (1) the amount directly held and used by that person, and (2) the amount held and used by that person indirectly through an ownership interest in or control of another entity that also holds and uses the LAP. Businesses that hold and use LAPs in the AFA Program and the CR Program are often composed of multiple owners that have ownership interests in multiple fishing businesses. In cases where a LAP is held by a business entity with more than one owner, NMFS applies the holding and use caps to each entity that holds or controls the LAP to monitor whether those entities each exceed the established caps. Ownership attribution refers to the method NMFS uses to assess the relationships between different entities that participate in LAP programs.
NMFS uses two ownership attribution methods to determine holdings and use of LAPs. These two methods for attributing ownership and use of a LAP are commonly known as the “individual and collective rule” and the “10-percent rule.” Under the individual and collective rule, NMFS attributes holding and use of LAPs by one person proportionally to their ownership in or control of another entity that holds and uses LAPs. For example, if Company A has a 15 percent ownership of Company B that holds LAPs, Company A would be attributed 15 percent of Company B's holding and use of the LAPs. In contrast, under the 10-percent rule, a person is attributed 100 percent of an entity's LAPs if that person owns or otherwise controls ten percent or more of that entity. Thus, if Company A holds or controls 10 percent or more of Company B, then 100 percent of Company B's holdings and use of LAPs are attributed to Company A. When a person owns or controls 10 percent or more of another entity, the individual and collective rule is less restrictive than the 10-percent rule because a person is only attributed holding and use in proportion to how much that person owns or controls of other entities, rather than attributing 100 percent of the other entity's LAP holdings once the 10-percent ownership or control threshold is met. Thus, under a holding and use cap, the individual and collective rule would allow a person to hold and use more LAPs than if the person was evaluated using the 10-percent rule.
Congress passed the AFA in October 1998 to implement additional U.S. ownership requirements for vessels harvesting fish from the EEZ. The purpose of the AFA was to tighten U.S. ownership standards that had been exploited under the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Anti-Reflagging Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-239) and to provide the BSAI pollock fleet the opportunity to conduct their fishery in a more rational manner (
Section 210(e) of the AFA set out excessive harvesting and processing limits for participants. Section 210(e)(1) of the AFA restricts an individual, corporation, or other entity to harvesting no more than 17.5 percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the directed pollock fishery. This limit is codified at 50 CFR 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(
Section 210(e)(2) of the AFA directed the Council to create management measures to prevent any particular individual or entity from processing an excessive share of pollock available in the directed pollock fishery. The Council and NMFS set this limit at 30 percent of the sum of the directed fishing allowances for pollock. This limit is codified at 50 CFR 679.20(a)(5)(i)(A)(
Section 210(e)(3) of the AFA also specified that any entity in which 10 percent or more of the interest is held or controlled by another individual or entity shall be considered to be the same entity as the other individual or entity for purposes of monitoring the harvesting and processing use caps. This section of the AFA directed NMFS to use the 10-percent rule to determine the use of AFA Program harvesting and processing privileges. NMFS implemented this AFA requirement in part by defining an “AFA entity” at 50 CFR 679.2 as a group of affiliated individuals, corporations, or other business concerns that harvest or process pollock in the Bering Sea directed pollock fishery. The proposed rule to implement the AFA Program stated that the concept of “affiliation” is central to the definition of “AFA entity” (66 FR 65028, 65049; December 17, 2001). As the December 2001 proposed rule explained, “affiliation” means a relationship between two or more individuals, corporations, or other business concerns in which one concern directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent or greater interest in the other, exerts 10 percent or greater control over the other, or has the power to exert 10 percent or greater control over the other; or a third individual, corporation, or other business concern directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent or greater interest in both, exerts 10 percent or greater control over both, or has the power to exert 10 percent or greater control over both (see regulations at § 679.2 for the definition of “affiliation” and Section 2.6.3 of the RIR for more information).
The CR Program was implemented on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174; March 2, 2005). The CR Program established a LAP program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch (TAC). This annual exclusive harvest privilege is called individual fishing quota (IFQ).
NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the CR Program. Each year, PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to a processor with IPQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match of the total pounds of IFQ that must be delivered to a processor with IPQ with the total pounds of IPQ issued in each crab fishery.
When the Council recommended the CR Program, it expressed concern about the potential for excessive consolidation of QS and PQS, in which too few persons control all of the QS or PQS and the resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The Council determined that excessive consolidation could have adverse effects on crab markets, price setting negotiations between harvesters and processors, employment opportunities for harvesting and processing crew, tax revenue to communities in which crab are landed, and other factors considered and described in the CR Program EIS. To address this concern, the CR Program includes limits on the amount of QS and PQS that a person can hold and the amount of IFQ and IPQ that a person can use.
The CR Program has QS and IFQ holding and use caps that vary by fishery because of different fleet characteristics and differences in historical dependency of participants on different crab fisheries. 50 CFR 680.42(a)(2) specifies that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule to apply holding and use caps for QS and IFQ for all CR Program participants, including CDQ groups, as recommended by the Council for monitoring harvesting privileges (see Section 2.7 of the RIR for more information).
For processing privileges, the CR Program limits a person to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially-issued PQS (50 CFR 680.42(b)). 50 CFR 680.42(b)(3) specifies that NMFS uses the 10-percent rule to monitor holding and use caps for PQS and IPQ for all CR Program participants as recommended by the Council and addressed in the preamble to the proposed rule for the CR Program (69 FR 63200, 63219 & 63226; October 29, 2004).
The CDQ Program was established by the Council and NMFS in 1992, and in 1996, authorization for the Program was incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The purpose of the CDQ Program is (1) to provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the BSAI, (2) to support economic development in western Alaska, (3) to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and (4) to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(A)).
Section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act describes the CDQ Program and identifies the villages eligible to participate in the CDQ Program through the six entities specified in Section 305(i)(1)(D) as the CDQ groups (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)). Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2 define the term “CDQ group” as an entity identified as eligible for the CDQ Program under 16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(D). The CDQ Program consists of six different non-profit managing organizations (CDQ groups) representing different geographical regions in Alaska. The CDQ Program receives annual allocations of TACs for a variety of commercially valuable species in the BSAI groundfish, crab, and halibut fisheries, which are in turn allocated among the CDQ groups (see Section 2.8 of the RIR).
The Secretary of Commerce approved regulations establishing the CDQ Program pollock allocation (57 FR 54936; November 23, 1992). When the AFA Program was implemented, the CDQ Program received an allocation of 10 percent of the Bering Sea pollock TAC (67 FR 79692, 79696; December 30, 2002). CDQ groups participate in the AFA Program primarily through ownership (wholly or partially) in vessels authorized to fish for Bering Sea pollock under the AFA. Vessel ownership varies by CDQ group (see Section 2.8.1 of the RIR). When the CR Program was implemented in 2005, the CDQ Program received an allocation of 10 percent of the TACs for some CR Program fisheries (70 FR 10174, 10176-77; March 2, 2005). In addition to the CDQ allocations, the CDQ groups hold QS and PQS directly as well as indirectly through ownership in other entities that hold QS and PQS (see Section 2.8.3 of the RIR).
In 2006, Congress passed the Coast Guard Act (Pub. L. 109-241), which amended the CDQ Program to give CDQ groups and their communities greater autonomy based on recommendations from the State of Alaska's Blue Ribbon Panel. Section 416(a) of the Coast Guard Act revised section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and made significant changes to the management and oversight of the CDQ Program. The amendments to section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act were intended to promote the ability of CDQ groups to responsibly manage their allocations similar to the LAPs provided by NMFS to most other participants in the BSAI fisheries, while promoting the goals of the CDQ Program (see Section 2.8 of the RIR).
The Coast Guard Act also revised section 305(i)(1)(F)(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to specify that CDQ groups would be subject to excessive share ownership, harvesting, and processing limitations proportional to their ownership of entities holding such privileges (
This proposed rule would revise 50 CFR 679.2, 679.7(k)(6) and (7), 680.2, and 680.42(b).
This proposed rule would revise the AFA Program to specify that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups to attribute harvesting and processing privileges of AFA pollock proportionally to the CDQ groups' ownership of vessels and processors active in those fisheries. For example, if a CDQ group holds 15 percent ownership of an entity that holds and uses AFA harvesting and processing privileges, this proposed rule would specify that the CDQ group is attributed 15 percent of the harvest or processing privileges of that company for purposes of monitoring excessive harvesting and processing use caps under the AFA.
The proposed rule would also implement Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP and revise the CR Program to specify that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups to attribute holding and use of PQS and IPQ based on the CDQ groups' proportional ownership of entities that hold and use PQS and IPQ. For example, if a CDQ group holds 15 percent ownership of a company that holds or uses PQS or IPQ, this proposed rule would specify that the CDQ group is attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of that PQS or IPQ. The proposed rule would not alter the regulations for the QS and IFQ holding and use caps under the CR Program because current CR Program regulations specify that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule for all program participants, including CDQ groups, to attribute any participants' holding and use of QS and IFQ based on their proportional ownership of entities that hold and use QS and IFQ.
NMFS has used the individual and collective rule for CDQ group ownership attribution for both the AFA Program and the CR Program since enactment of the Coast Guard Act; however, the regulations and the Crab FMP have not been updated to reflect this change. This proposed rule would update the regulations and the Crab FMP to be consistent with NMFS' current method of ownership attribution for CDQ groups and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This proposed rule would benefit CDQ groups and the public by clarifying the method NMFS uses to attribute holding and use of harvesting and processing privileges by CDQ groups for purposes of monitoring holding and use caps for the AFA and CR Programs.
Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 48, the Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS requests comments on the decision to certify this proposed rule. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
This proposed action would revise regulations and the Crab FMP so that they are consistent with the ownership attribution method mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act for CDQ groups for monitoring limitations on the holding and use of harvesting and processing privileges in the AFA and CR Programs.
The CDQ groups would be the directly regulated entities under the proposed regulatory revisions. All six of the CDQ groups are non-profit corporations and are considered small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As NMFS, one of the agencies that manages these holding and use limitations, has already implemented these provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in practice, this proposed action is not expected to materially change how any small entities are regulated, nor is the proposed action expected to impose significant compliance costs or materially change how any small entities comply with the applicable regulations. Rather, this proposed rule would benefit CDQ groups and the public by clarifying the method NMFS uses to attribute holding and use of harvesting and processing privileges by CDQ groups for purposes of monitoring holding and use caps for the AFA and CR Programs. This proposed action therefore is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of the small entities regulated by this proposed action—the CDQ groups. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
The economic analysis contained in the RIR for this action (see
This rule references collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which
Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information, to NMFS (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at:
No relevant Federal rules have been identified that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alaska, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 and part 680 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(k) * * *
(6)
(7)
16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.
(1)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Is not a CDQ group and directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent or greater interest in an entity that holds PQS.
(iii) A person that is not a CDQ group and holds PQS is limited to a PQS use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all PQS held by that PQS holder and all PQS held by any affiliate of the PQS holder. A CDQ group that holds PQS is limited to a PQS use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all PQS held, individually or collectively, by that CDQ group.
(iv) A person that is not a CDQ group and holds IPQ is limited to an IPQ use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all IPQ held by that IPQ holder and all IPQ held by any affiliate of the IPQ holder. A CDQ group that holds IPQ is limited to an IPQ use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all IPQ held, individually or collectively, by that CDQ group.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the public meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW., 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045, or online at
This public meeting,
Those wishing to participate in the meeting in person should arrive early as seating is limited. More information, including a detailed agenda, can be found on the BIFAD landing page at
To obtain additional information about this public meeting or BIFAD, interested parties should contact Clara Cohen, Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD in the Bureau for Food Security at USAID. Interested persons may write to her in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Bureau for Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523-2110 or telephone her at (202) 712-0119.
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 21, 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.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection. The purpose of the Summer Meals Study is for the Food and Nutrition Service to understand the facilitators and barriers to program implementation, perceived benefits and challenges for sponsor and site participation, nutritional quality of meals served, parental awareness, factors influencing child participation, and experience with the Summer Food Service Program and the National School Lunch Program's Seamless Summer Option.
Written comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Comments may be sent to: Alice Ann Gola, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Alice Ann Gola at 703-305-2576 or via email to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collected should be directed to Alice Ann Gola at 703-305-4347 or
The six study objectives are: (1) Identify reasons children and their caregivers participate in summer meals and their satisfaction levels with the program; (2) Assess how characteristics differ between participants and eligible nonparticipants of SFSP and SSO; (3) Determine the reasons eligible families do not participate in SFSP and SSO; (4) Determine the food service characteristics of SFSP and SSO sites; (5) Describe the characteristics and content of SFSP and SSO meals and snacks; and (6) Assess facilitators and barriers to preparing and serving SFSP and SSO meals and snacks.
A nationally representative study with a mixed-methods research design will be used to address the six study objectives. States will be selected for the study using FNS administrative data on SFSP and SSO program size. In the selected States, State agencies administering SFSP and SSO will provide lists of participating sites and sponsors from which the sample of sites will be drawn. State agencies administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in these States will provide SNAP caseload data. These data will be used in conjunction with postal data to identify children in the catchment areas of sampled sites. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected from SFSP and SSO sponsors and sites, former sponsors, and participants and eligible nonparticipants.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden on the proposed collection of information,
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) intent to request approval to collect information via online forms. This is a revision of a currently approved information collection request which was transferred from Agricultural Research Service. These voluntary forms (SNAP-Ed Connection Recipe Submission and Review Forms) will be used by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) instructors, Individuals/Households (consumers from the general public), Business (the private sector), USDA Food program operators, and other Federal entities and State Agencies (school nutrition experts, State Agency nutrition programs) to submit recipes. These same groups will also be able to review recipes. These two voluntary forms (
Comments on this notice must be received by October 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be sent to: Usha Kalro, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Program Administration and Accountability Division, SNAP-Ed Connection, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 822, Alexandria, VA 22302, or via fax 703 305 0928. Submit electronic comments to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collected should be directed to Usha Kalro, telephone (703) 305-2397, or at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden on the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
The
Data collected (such as names, addresses, emails and affiliations) from
(There are 75 State Agencies—who SNAP-Ed instructors, school nutrition experts, state agency nutrition programs), 50 business from the private sector, 100 individuals and household consumers from the general public, the USDA Foods program operators, and Federal. We are not counting burden for the Federal Government entities since these agencies specializes in food nutrition which falls within the scope of their mission.
See table below for overall breakdown by affected public and forms:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Huron-Manistee Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Mio, Michigan. The RAC is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the RAC is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act.
The meeting will be held on September 5, 2017, from 6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For meeting status prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Mio Ranger District, 107 McKinley Road, Mio, Michigan 48647. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference or by video conference, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Brad Bolton, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 989-826-3252 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review and adopt meeting minutes from previous meeting,
2. Review process' for recommending and considering Title II projects,
3. Provide project presentations, and
4. Allow for public comment.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing by August 29, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Brad Bolton, Designated Federal Officer, 107 McKinley Road, Mio, Michigan 48647, by email to
On April 4, 2017, Polaris Industries, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within Subzone 167B, in Osceola, Wisconsin.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting an expansion of Subzone 38A on behalf of BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC, to include a site in Duncan, South Carolina. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 16, 2017.
The applicant is requesting authority to expand Subzone 38A to include an additional site: Site 10 (10.68 acres)—1181 Howell Road, Duncan, Spartanburg County. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 2, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 16, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at
Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 277, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of CornellCookson, Inc. (CornellCookson) for its facility in Goodyear, Arizona within FTZ 277. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 19, 2017.
CornellCookson already has authority to produce rolling steel doors within Site 11 of FTZ 277. The current request would add foreign status components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt CornellCookson from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status components noted below, CornellCookson would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to rolling steel doors (duty free). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: Steel chains and parts; release pins; motor mounting kits; chain sprockets; centrifugal switches; electrical rectifiers and power supplies; alarm speakers; electrical motor overload protectors; electrical switches; electrical control panels (less than 1,000 volts); electrical cables and conductors; AC motor heaters; and, AC motor encoders (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.7%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 2, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 8, 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 eighth 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, 2012, through January 31, 2013. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that the Department is amending the final results with respect to the labor surrogate value applied in the administrative review.
Applicable August 18, 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 24, 2014, the Department published the
In light of the Court's
In the
Further, we adjusted the Minh Phu Group's final margin from 4.98 percent
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
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld
Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company, the cash deposit rate for Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company will remain the rate established in the most recently-completed administrative review in which it received a cash deposit rate of 4.78 percent.
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 company that qualified for a separate rate and is subject to this litigation; thus, the cash deposit rate of 6.94 percent, as recalculated in
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 availability; request for comments.
NMFS is publishing its draft List of Foreign Fisheries (LOFF) for 2017, as required by the regulations implementing the Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The draft LOFF reflects available information on marine mammal interactions in commercial fisheries exporting fish and fish products to the United States. NMFS has classified each commercial fishery included in the draft LOFF into one of two categories based upon frequency and likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that is likely to occur incidental to each fishery. Fisheries are classified as either exempt or export. The classification of a fishery on the draft and final LOFF will determine which regulatory requirements will be applicable to that fishery to enable the nation to receive a comparability finding necessary to export fish and fish products to the United States from that particular fishery. The draft LOFF can be found at
Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0084, by either of the following methods:
1.
2.
NMFS will consider all comments and information received during the comment period in preparing a final LOFF. NMFS will also seek input from nations on the draft LOFF at bilateral and multilateral meetings, as appropriate.
Nina Young, NMFS F/IASI at
In August 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 54390; August 15, 2016) implementing the fish and fish product import provisions (section 101(a)(2)) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This rule established conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory programs to address incidental and intentional mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in fisheries operated by nations that export fish and fish products to the United States.
Under this rule, fish or fish products cannot be imported into the United States from commercial fishing operations, which result in the
Based on information provided by nations, industry, the public, and other readily available sources, NMFS has identified nations with commercial fishing operations that export fish and fish products to the United States and has classified each of those fisheries based on their frequency of marine mammal interactions as either “exempt” or “export” fisheries (see definitions below). The entire list of these export and exempt fisheries, organized by nation (or subsidiary jurisdiction), constitutes the LOFF.
Under the MMPA, the United States prohibits imports of commercial fish or fish products caught in commercial fishing operations resulting in the incidental killing or serious injury (bycatch) of marine mammals in excess of United States standards (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)). NMFS published regulations implementing these MMPA import provisions in August 2016 (81 FR 54390, August 15, 2016). The regulations apply to any foreign nation with fisheries exporting fish and fish products to the United States, either directly or through an intermediary nation.
The LOFF is an integral part of the process for implementing the import provisions of the MMPA. As described below, the LOFF lists foreign commercial fisheries that export fish and fish products to the United States and that have been classified as either “export” or “exempt” based on the frequency and likelihood of interactions or incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammal. A harvesting nation must apply for and receive a comparability finding for each of its export and exempt fisheries to continue to export fish and fish products from those fisheries to the United States. For all fisheries, in order to receive a comparability finding under this program, the harvesting nation must prohibit intentional killing of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations in the fishery or demonstrate that it has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products to the United States were not harvested in association with the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals.
The classifications of “exempt fishery” or “export fishery” determine the criteria that a particular nation's fishery must meet to receive a comparability finding for that fishery. A comparability finding is required for both exempt and export fisheries, but the criteria differ.
The criteria for an exempt fishery to receive a comparability finding are limited only to those conditions related to the prohibition of intentional killing or injury of marine mammals (see 50 CFR 216.24(h)(6)(iii)(A)). To receive a comparability finding, export fisheries, must comply with those criteria and also maintain regulatory programs comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for reducing incidental marine mammal bycatch (see 50 CFR 216.24(h)(6)).
NMFS included a five-year exemption period (which began 1 January, 2017) in this process to allow foreign harvesting nations time to develop, as appropriate, regulatory programs comparable in effectiveness to U.S. programs at reducing marine mammal bycatch. During this exemption period, NMFS, based on the final LOFF, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, will consult with harvesting nations with commercial fishing operations identified as export or exempt fisheries for purposes of notifying the harvesting nation of the requirements of the MMPA. NMFS will continue to urge harvesting nations to gather information about marine mammal bycatch in their commercial fisheries to inform the next draft and final LOFF. NMFS will re-evaluate foreign commercial fishing operations and publish a notice of availability of the draft for public comment, and a notice of availability of the final revised LOFF in the
If, during the five-year exemption period, the United States determines that a marine mammal stock is immediately and significantly adversely affected by an export fishery, NMFS may use its emergency rulemaking authority to institute an import ban on these products.
In instances where information on the commercial fishing operations and the frequency and likelihood of bycatch in a fishery has not been provided by the nation or is not readily available, NMFS may determine whether a fishery is an exempt or export fishery by evaluating the fishery using information such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other factors.
As anticipated, information on the frequency or likelihood of interactions or bycatch in most foreign fisheries was lacking or incomplete. In the absence of such information, NMFS used the information noted above to classify fisheries, which may include drawing analogies to similar U.S. fisheries and gear types interacting with similar marine mammal stocks. Where no analogous fishery or fishery information exists, NMFS classified the commercial fishing operation as an export fishery until such time as information comes available to properly classify the fishery. NMFS may reclassify a fishery if a harvesting nation provides, during the comment period, reliable information to reclassify the fishery or such information is readily available to NMFS in the course of preparing a revised LOFF.
In the LOFF, the vast majority, 3272 fisheries, are classified as export fisheries in accordance with 50 CFR 216.24(h)(3) and 216.3. To ensure the appropriate classification of their fisheries, nations should review the LOFF at
If a nation or entity wishes to advocate for a change in the classification of a fishery, the nation or entity should provide detailed information about the fishery, summaries of observer or logbook data, information on analogous fisheries where marine mammal bycatch may or may not occur, and detailed documentary evidence to support its claims, including, whenever possible, peer-reviewed data on marine mammal bycatch and impacts of bycatch to marine mammal population abundance. NMFS recommends that nations make specific edits in the appropriate column to the draft LOFF and provide references and supporting information.
Fisheries that occur solely in fresh water outside any marine mammal habitat, and inland aquaculture operations, are exempt from this rule. If any such fisheries have been included in the LOFF, nations should indicate such fisheries and provide the necessary documentary evidence so NMFS can remove them from the LOFF as appropriate.
Many nations either did not provide information or provided incomplete information. Where no information was provided, NMFS labelled that data set as “none provided.” Nations are strongly encouraged to provide that information during the public comment period. In particular, NMFS is lacking information for many fisheries on gear type, area of operation, marine mammal species that a fishery may encounter or entangle as bycatch, and bycatch estimates for many species. This information is critical for properly classifying the fishery. When no information was provided, NMFS used other readily available information to define a fishery. Nations are urged to review both information supplied by the nation or discovered by NMFS, especially those nations that did not provide information or provided incomplete information.
NMFS also urges nations to provide the area of operation for both wild-caught fisheries and aquaculture operations for all the fisheries listed. It is particularly important for nations to provide information on the location of aquaculture operations (
In developing the LOFF, NMFS divided the fisheries by gear type because certain gears are documented as posing a greater risk of having marine mammal bycatch than others. Subdividing fishery information in this manner may not account for the actual or estimated number of vessels. Nations should review the number of vessels licensed to fish with a particular gear type and provide comments or revised estimates of vessels licensed to fish with that gear type.
Some fisheries in the LOFF are likely multi-species fisheries but are currently classified separately by fish species. If a fishery listed has multiple target species (
NMFS also urges nations to group or list fisheries, not based on the product exported but on the actual target species of the fishery. If an exported fish or fish product is not a target of a fishery but rather is a bycatch of that fishery, nations should note that information. NMFS prefers avoiding consolidating gear types together due to the different risk gear types pose to marine mammals, but would consider aggregating fisheries by target species or area, based on a nation's recommendations.
NMFS separated fisheries into specific areas of operation. Our experience indicates that marine mammal bycatch can differ depending on a fishery's area of operation and its overlap with marine mammal populations. NMFS urges nations to review the area of operation listed for each fishery and aggregate fisheries of the same gear type into larger areas of operation (
NMFS attempted to identify fisheries that are operating within a convention area of a regional fishery management organization (RFMO) or are associated with an intergovernmental agreement. NMFS requests that nations identify which fisheries are operating or authorized under an RFMO or intergovernmental agreement and provide information on conservation and management measures that specifically govern the bycatch of marine mammals in that organization. This information will further assist in the classification of fisheries and determinations related to future comparability findings.
Many nations have access agreements with other nations that permit them to fish within the EEZ or territorial waters of another nation (see annex on global tuna catch and access agreements in supporting documents at
In most cases, nations did not provide information distinguishing between vessels permitted to fish in their own territorial waters from their national vessels fishing in distant waters under some type of access agreement. NMFS strongly encourages nation to identify which fisheries are operating under access agreements in distant waters or within the EEZ of another nation and the reporting requirements for such fisheries.
For the purposes of identifying intermediary nations (discussed below), if a nation exports a fish or fish product to the United States for which it is only the processor, and the fish in that product is harvested elsewhere, NMFS strongly encourages nations or other entities to identify those products and the source fisheries and nations for those products. Providing this information will result in NMFS re-classifying a nation as an intermediary nation for that specific fish or fish product.
Nations will note that there are products for which NMFS has been unable to find information (
NMFS urges nations to examine their exports to the United States over the last decade and include all fisheries which have, are, or may in the future be the source of fish and fish products exported to the United States. To ensure that no fisheries are overlooked in this process, nations should be as inclusive as possible. Nations or other entities should provide all the documentation and applicable references necessary to support any proposed modifications to the fisheries in the LOFF. Providing such information will ensure an accurate classification of each fishery in the final LOFF and avoid requiring a nation to develop a regulatory program for a fishery classified as an export fishery because the nation failed to provide information.
NMFS welcomes the input of the public, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. These entities can provide critical information about marine mammal bycatch in global fisheries and efforts to mitigate such bycatch. NMFS requests that when such entities comment on the LOFF, they provide as much detail and supporting documentary evidence as possible. While there are references in the literature to marine mammal bycatch in certain foreign fisheries, it may be that fish and fish products originating from those fisheries are not exported to the United States (
NMFS urges all nations and all stakeholders to review the criteria, assumptions, and global classifications that follow in this
A comparability finding is a finding by NMFS that the harvesting nation for an export or exempt fishery has met the applicable conditions specified in the regulations (see 50 CFR 216.24(h)) subject to the additional considerations for comparability findings set out in the regulations. A comparability finding is required for a nation to export fish and fish products to the United States. In order to receive a comparability finding for an export fishery, the harvesting nation must maintain a regulatory program with respect to that fishery that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for reducing incidental marine mammal bycatch. This may be met by maintaining a regulatory program that includes measures that are comparable, or that effectively achieve comparable results, to the regulatory program under which the analogous U.S. fishery operates.
The definition of export fishery can be found in the implementing regulations for section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA (see 50 CFR 216.3). NMFS considers “export” fisheries to be functionally equivalent to Category I and II fisheries under the U.S. regulatory program (see definitions at 50 CFR 229.2). The definition of an export fishery is summarized below.
NMFS defines “export fishery” as a foreign commercial fishing operation determined by the Assistant Administrator to be the source of exports of commercial fish and fish products to the United States that have more than a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of its commercial fishing operations.
Where reliable information on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation is not provided by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator may determine the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury as more than remote by evaluating information concerning factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target fish species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other factors.
Commercial fishing operations not specifically identified in the current LOFF as either exempt or export fisheries are deemed to be export fisheries until a revised LOFF is posted, unless the harvesting nation provides the Assistant Administrator with information to properly classify the foreign commercial fishing operation. The Assistant Administrator may also request additional information from the harvesting nation, as well as consider other relevant information about such commercial fishing operations and the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, to properly classify the foreign commercial fishing operation.
The definition of exempt fishery can be found in the implementing regulations for section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA (see 50 CFR 216.3). NMFS considers “exempt” fisheries to be functionally equivalent to Category III fisheries under the U.S. regulatory program (see definitions at 50 CFR 229.2). The definition of an exempt fishery is summarized below.
NMFS defines an exempt fishery as a foreign commercial fishing operation determined by the Assistant Administrator to be the source of exports of commercial fish and fish products to the United States that have a remote likelihood of, or no known, incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. A commercial fishing operation that has a remote likelihood of causing incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals is one that, collectively with other foreign fisheries exporting fish and fish products to the United States, causes the annual removal of:
(1) Ten percent or less of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit, or
(2) More than ten percent of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit, yet that fishery by itself removes one percent or less of that stock's bycatch limit annually, or
(3) Where reliable information has not been provided by the harvesting nation on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation, the Assistant Administrator may determine whether the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury is “remote” by evaluating information such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods to deter marine mammals, target fish species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other
A foreign fishery will not be classified as an exempt fishery unless the Assistant Administrator has reliable information from the harvesting nation, or other information to support such a finding.
NMFS organized the LOFF by harvesting nation (or subsidiary jurisdiction), then exempt fisheries, export fisheries, and export fisheries with no information. The fisheries listed contain defining factors including geographic location of harvest, gear-type, target species or a combination thereof. The LOFF also includes a list of the marine mammals that interact with each commercial fishing operation, where known, and, when available, indicates the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in each commercial fishing operation.
NMFS reviewed and considered documentation provided by nations; the public; and other sources of information, where available, including fishing vessel records; reports of on-board fishery observers; information from off-loading facilities, port-side government officials, enforcement, transshipment vessel workers and fish importers; government vessel registries; RFMOs or intergovernmental agreement documents, reports, national reports, and statistical document programs; appropriate catch certification programs; Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)documents and profiles; and published literature and reports on commercial fishing operations with intentional or incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. NMFS has used these sources of information and any other readily available information to classify the fisheries as “export” or “exempt” fisheries to develop the LOFF.
First, NMFS identified imports of fish and fish products by nation using the U.S. foreign trade database for commercial fisheries imports found at:
For commercial fishing operations, NMFS requested information on the number of participants, number of vessels, gear type, target species, area of operation, fishing season, and any information regarding the frequency of marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury, including programs to assess marine mammal populations or bycatch. NMFS also requested that nations submit copies of any laws, decrees, regulations, or measures to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in their commercial fishing operations or prohibit the intentional killing or injury of marine mammals.
NMFS also evaluated information submitted by the nations and the public in response to
The LOFF includes a list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally or intentionally killed or injured in a commercial fishing operation. The list of species and/or stocks incidentally or intentionally killed or injured includes “serious” and “non-serious” documented injuries and interactions with fishing gear, including interactions such as depredation.
NMFS reviewed information submitted by nations and readily available scientific information including co-occurrence models demonstrating distributional overlap of the commercial fishing operations and marine mammals to determine which species or stocks to include as incidentally or intentionally killed or seriously injured in or interacting with a fishery. NMFS also reviewed, when available, injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, disentanglement network data, fisher self-reports, and the information referenced in the definition of exempt and export fishery (see above or 50 CFR 216.3).
NMFS has developed this draft LOFF and intends to publish a notice of the availability of the final LOFF in the
To change a fishery's classification, nations or other interested stakeholders must provide observer data, logbook summaries, or reports that specifically indicate the presence or absence of marine mammal interactions, quantify such interactions wherever possible, provide additional information on the location and operation of the fishery (
Dolphin (family
Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 (“Sec. 609”) prohibits imports of certain categories of shrimp unless the President annually certifies to the Congress by May 1, 1991, and annually thereafter, that either: (1) The harvesting nation has adopted a program governing the incidental taking of sea turtles in its commercial shrimp fishery comparable to the program in effect in the United States and has an incidental take rate comparable to that of the United States; or (2) the particular fishing environment of the harvesting nation does not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles. On May 1, 2017, the Department of State certified that 13 shrimp-harvesting nations and four fisheries have a regulatory program comparable to that of the United States governing the incidental taking of the relevant species of sea turtles in the course of commercial shrimp harvesting and that the particular fishing environments of 26 shrimp-harvesting nations, one economy, and three fisheries do not pose a threat of the incidental taking of covered sea turtles in the course of such harvesting (83 FR 21295 May 5, 2017). All nations exporting wild-caught shrimp and shrimp products to the United States, regardless of whether they are certified under this provision, must also comply with the MMPA import rule, be included on the LOFF, and have a comparability finding. Nations in compliance with the MMPA import rule, but not certified under Public Law 101-162, cannot export wild-caught shrimp to the United States.
If estimates of the total incidental mortality and serious injury were available and a bycatch limit calculated for a marine mammal stock, NMFS used the quantitative and tiered analysis to classify foreign commercial fishing operations as export or exempt fisheries under the category definition within 50 CFR 229.2 and the procedures used to categorize U.S. fisheries as Category I, II, or III, at
In the majority of cases, however, NMFS either did not receive any information or found that the information provided was incomplete, lacking detail regarding marine mammal interactions, and lacking quantitative information on the frequency of interactions. Where nations provided estimates of bycatch (incidental or intentional mortality or serious injury) or NMFS found estimates of bycatch in published literature, national reports, or through other readily available sources, NMFS classified the fishery as an export fishery if the information indicated that there was a likelihood that the mortality and serious injury was more than remote. The code or designation in the LOFF for the determination “presence of bycatch” is recorded as “
Because bycatch estimates were lacking for most fisheries, NMFS relied on three considerations to assess the likelihood of bycatch or interaction with marine mammals, including: (1) Co-occurrence, the spatial and seasonal distribution and overlap of marine mammals and fishing operations; (2) analogous gear, evaluation of records of bycatch and assessment of risk, where such information exists, in analogous U.S. and international fisheries or gear types; and (3) overarching classifications, evaluation of gears and fishing operations and their risk of marine mammal bycatch (see section below for further discussion). Published scientific literature provides numerous risk assessments of marine mammal bycatch in fisheries, routinely using these approaches to estimate marine mammal mortality rates, identify information gaps, set priorities for conservation, and transfer technology for deterring marine mammals from gear and catch. Findings from the most recent publications cited in this
The co-occurrence of marine mammal populations with a commercial fishing operation can be a measure of risk. NMFS evaluated, when available, the distribution and spatial overlap of marine mammal populations and commercial fishing operations to determine whether the probability for marine mammal interactions or bycatch in that fishery is more than remote. Resources that NMFS used to consider co-occurrence include OBIS-SEAMAP
Where a nation did not provide documentation or information was not readily available on the amount of marine mammal bycatch in a fishery or the co-occurrence, NMFS classified a fishery as exempt or export by analogy to similar U.S. or international fisheries and gear types interacting with similar marine mammal stocks. NMFS consulted the United States' domestic MMPA List of Fisheries when classifying by analogy international fisheries
When no analogous gear, fishery, or fishery information existed, or insufficient information was provided by the nation, and information was not readily available, NMFS classified the commercial fishing operation as an export fishery per the definition of “export fishery” at 50 CFR 216.3. These fishing operations will remain classified as export fisheries until the harvesting nation provides the reliable information necessary to classify properly the fishery or, in the course of revising the LOFF, such information becomes readily available to NMFS. The code or designation for the determination “no information” is recorded as “
In some cases, NMFS recorded multiple codes as the rationale for a fishery classification. For example, NMFS may have received insufficient information from a nation, still lacks information in some columns, yet classified the fishery by analogy. In that instance, the codes used to classify the fishery would be: “
Additional terms in the LOFF include “none provided,” “no information,” and “none documented”. “None provided” indicates the nation did not provide information and no information could be found through research and literature searches. “None documented” indicates that neither the nation nor reference material have documented interactions with marine mammals either through observers or logbooks. “No information” indicates that the nation provided information but did not specifically provide information on the marine mammal species interacting with a fishery or estimates of marine mammal bycatch.
Below is a discussion of the overarching fishery classifications of gillnets, longlines, purse seines, trawls, and aquaculture, and their interactions with marine mammals.
Because the available information indicates that there is a likelihood that the mortality and serious injury caused by gillnets is more than remote, NMFS has classified all gillnet fisheries as export fisheries in the draft LOFF. Several U.S. gillnet fisheries, which are analogous to some fisheries considered in the LOFF, have been categorized as Category I fisheries under the MMPA. Records show that between 1990 and 2011, bycatch in gillnets continues to affect many dolphins (
International and regional marine mammal and fishery management organizations such as ACCOBAMS (2008), ASCOBANS (2009), CMS (2011), FAO (2000), ICES (2013), IOTC (2014), and IWC (2004) have conducted workshops, collected information, and published findings documenting the high risk gillnets pose to marine mammals.
Based on the available information, NMFS has designated all gillnet fisheries as export fisheries. Nations wishing to challenge this designation must provide observer or logbook data sufficient to refute this determination. When possible, NMFS requests nations provide documentation that demonstrates that a gillnet fishery poses a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals.
Because the available information indicates that there is a likelihood that the mortality and serious injury caused by longlines is more than remote, NMFS classified all longline fisheries as export fisheries. U.S. longline fisheries, which are analogous to some fisheries considered in the LOFF, have been categorized as Category I fisheries under the MMPA.
In longline fisheries, hooking, entanglement, and boat strikes account for some mortality and serious injury, but not all interactions or depredation may have this result. Interactions of marine mammals with longline fisheries are likely to be under-reported (Clarke 2014). Though not as great a threat for cetaceans globally as compared with other gear types, longline bycatch is a threat to several species and populations, including false killer whales (
In a 2010 bycatch workshop with tuna RFMOs, the FAO found that progress on quantifying tuna RFMO fishery impacts on marine mammal populations and related progress in mitigating or reducing the mortality has been slow, because the priority for fishers is the adoption of measures to reduce or eliminate depredation and gear damage (FAO 2010). In tuna longline fisheries, which represent a significant portion of fisheries that export seafood to the United States, cetaceans are occasionally entangled and hooked. Any entanglement could be mitigated by the use of voluntary or mandated best practices to avoid bycatch by the tuna fishing industry; however, to date, the application of such techniques has been limited (Gilman 2011).
Only through an evaluation of the bycatch rate and a determination of overall risk of bycatch associated with longline fishing can definitive case-by-case classifications be made for longline fisheries. NMFS invites nations who are parties and cooperating non-parties to RFMOs to join us in urging their respective RFMOs to undertake, as a research priority, such a risk assessment and analyze logbook and observer data
NMFS designated all longline fisheries as export fisheries. Nations wishing to challenge this designation must provide observer or logbook data sufficient to refute this determination. When possible, NMFS requests that nations provide documentation that demonstrates that a longline fishery poses a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals.
Because the available information indicates that there is a likelihood that the mortality and serious injury caused by purse seines is more than remote, NMFS classified several types of purse seine fisheries as export fisheries. Purse seine gear is documented to have marine mammal bycatch globally (Anderson 2014, Hall 2013, NOAA Tech Memo 2011). A portion of tuna exported to the United States is captured with purse seines, documented to have marine mammal bycatch (Anderson 2014, Gilman 2011, IOTC 2010). Marine mammal interactions have been documented in purse seine fisheries other than those for tuna, including anchovy (Gonzales 2015), sardine (Prajith 2014), and small scale coastal fisheries for various species (Mustika, 2014, Kiszka 2008).
Purse seine fisheries for tuna are, with some exceptions, managed through RFMOs according to agreements entered into by member nations. Five tuna RFMOs manage fisheries in the Southern Ocean, Indian Ocean, Eastern Tropical Pacific, Western and Central Pacific, and Atlantic. Only three RFMOs have adopted measures to mitigate marine mammal bycatch in purse seine fisheries or prohibit entirely the intentional encirclement of marine mammals with purse seines. Specifically, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission serves as the secretariat for the International Dolphin Conservation Program; the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission prohibits members from intentionally setting on cetaceans; and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission also prohibits intentionally setting on schools associated with cetaceans, and requires reasonable steps to ensure safe release of marine mammals. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna do not prescribe marine mammal conservation measures.
NMFS designated most non-tuna purse seine fisheries as export fisheries. Purse seine fisheries outside tuna RFMO areas of jurisdiction are designated as export fisheries. Tuna fisheries within the jurisdiction of RFMOs lacking measures that prohibit intentional encirclement are export fisheries. Tuna fisheries within the jurisdiction of RFMOs with measures that prohibit intentional encirclement are exempt fisheries, unless information submitted by nations or readily available scientific information shows that the fishery has more than a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of its commercial fishing operations. Nations wishing to challenge these designations must provide observer or logbook data sufficient to refute this determination. When possible, NMFS requests nations provide documentation that demonstrates that purse seine gear in a particular fishery poses a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals.
Because the available information indicates that there is a likelihood that the mortality and serious injury caused by trawl fisheries is more than remote, NMFS classified several types of trawl fisheries as export fisheries. U.S. trawl fisheries with marine mammal bycatch, which are analogous to some fisheries considered in the LOFF have been categorized as Category II fisheries under the MMPA.
Trawl fisheries, including bottom, mid-water, and pelagic trawls, have been documented to globally interact with marine mammals (Peltier
Nations wishing to challenge that designation must provide observer or logbook data sufficient to refute this determination. When possible, NMFS requests nations provide documentation that demonstrates that a trawl fishery poses a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury to marine mammals.
Based on the available information, NMFS has designated most aquaculture operations for which nations submitted information as exempt fisheries unless there is a record of entanglement or intentional killing in such aquaculture operations. Because the MMPA import rule applies to aquaculture facilities sited in marine mammal habitat, where deterrence measures (
In some aquaculture operations, bycatch of marine mammals in anti-predator nets occurs occasionally, although direct killing, harassment, and exclusion from preferred habitat may pose more serious problems for marine mammal populations (Kemper
Literature documenting marine mammal interactions and the risk of marine mammal interactions with aquaculture equipment, or fish cages is lacking. For net pens and fish cages, the most damaging marine mammal interactions are with pinnipeds, while dolphins, porpoises and whales are viewed as a minor threat. Dolphins have been documented feeding on wild fish attracted to marine fish farms off Italy but were not reported to predate the caged fish (Díaz López
Mussel aquaculture is a growing industry, with coastal and offshore waters being utilized for mussel aquaculture farms. This form of aquaculture uses ropes in the water column that pose an entanglement risk to marine mammals, particularly whales, although the extent of the risk is undetermined. In 2015, a Pacific right whale was documented entangled in, but successfully disentangled and released from, the grow-out ropes of mussel farm gear in Korea (Young, 2015). A Bryde's whale was entangled in mussel spat lines off the coast of New Zealand (Lloyd 2003). A humpback calf was found entangled in mussel spat-collecting rope off Western Australia but was disentangled and released (Groom & Coughran, 2012). Finally, a humpback whale died from entanglement in single dropper spat- collectors at an experimental mussel farm in northwest Iceland (Young, 2015). Given this information, the placement of aquaculture farms in waters that are critical habitats and migratory routes for endangered species, can increase the risk of entanglements, and in so doing can change the classification of the aquaculture operation.
Review of the NMFS U. S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (Waring et al. 2012, 2015) finds very few verified instances of marine mammals being injured by or entangled in aquaculture gear. U.S aquaculture facilities are Category III fisheries, because there are no known incidental mortalities or serious injuries of marine mammals in these operations, and they are considered to have a remote likelihood of marine mammal interactions. Therefore, by analogy, NMFS is proposing to classify all aquaculture operations for which nations provided information (or for which scientific information is readily available) as exempt in the LOFF, absent information and evidence that a particular aquaculture operation has more than a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, NMFS is seeking comment on this classification. However, NMFS has classified as export fisheries aquaculture facilities with a record of entanglement or a history of intentional killing. A harvesting nation must demonstrate that all aquaculture operations, regardless of their classification, sited in marine mammal habitat or interacting with marine mammals, are prohibited from the intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of aquaculture operations or have established procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the product of an intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal.
While NMFS desires more information about the environmental risk of these operations, particularly mussel rope and cage aquaculture, to marine mammals and urges the industry to develop mitigation techniques to avoid potential entanglements or reduce their severity, the documented interactions have been mostly non-life threatening. Nevertheless, in developing the LOFF, NMFS has evaluated, and will continue to evaluate, aquaculture operations on a case-by-case basis, considering the operation's measures to reduce interactions, prohibit intentional mortality, and reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals (
In the implementing regulations and the LOFF, NMFS has defined “
Additionally, there are several gear types in the U.S. List of Fisheries that are consistently and broadly classified as category III fisheries with no documented marine mammal catch (see
By analogy, NMFS classified these gear types as exempt in the LOFF.
NMFS first informed nations of the requirements of the MMPA import rule and the process to develop the LOFF via a cable sent to all trading partners in September 2016. On December 21, 2016, NMFS sent a letter to the Washington, DC embassy of each trading partner officially requesting the information needed to create the LOFF. The letter included explicit details about the type of information needed. From March through June 2017, NMFS followed up on these requests by phone, emails, and in some cases, visits to embassies in the United States, requesting information on nation's fisheries that export to the United States. Additionally, NMFS searched readily available information, including FAO documents, in an attempt to classify fisheries for which nations failed to provide sufficient information or provided no information at all. If nations submit information during this comment period on the draft LOFF, NMFS will consider this information when developing the final LOFF.
As discussed above, NMFS classified as export fisheries all fisheries from nations that failed to respond to requests for information or provided insufficient information about a fishery and for which information was not readily available as stipulated in the implementing regulations defining export and exempt fishery (see 50 CFR 216.3 Definitions of Export and Exempt Fishery).
The following nations failed to provide information on their fisheries, and NMFS did not find available information to classify their fisheries; consequently, NMFS classified all these nations' fisheries as export fisheries (see 50 CFR 216.3 Definitions of Export and Exempt Fishery).
• British Virgin Islands (BVI) failed to provide data for exports of marine fish,
• Cameroon failed to provide data for exports of groundfish (cod, cusk, haddock, hake, pollock, sole), mackerel, herring, snail, mussels, oysters, crawfish, crustaceans, tilapia, and shrimp. These species may be harvested with longlines and gillnets. Indications of marine mammal bycatch in longlines (Werner 2014) and gillnets (Ayissi
• China also did not provide information, and the data readily available and used to classify China's fisheries that export to the United States may not accurately characterize existing aquaculture operations, processing operations, and wild-capture fisheries.
• Haiti failed to provide data for exports of conch, coral, crab, lobster, molluscs, sea cucumbers, and shrimp. Haiti has not exported fish or fish products to the United States since 2012.
NMFS defines an intermediary nation as a nation that imports fish or fish products from a fishery on the LOFF and re-exports such fish or fish products to the United States. To prevent any fish or fish products subject to import prohibitions authorized by the MMPA import rule from being imported into the United States from any intermediary nation, including a processing nation, NMFS includes provisions for intermediary nations (see 50 CFR 216.24 (h)(9)(iv)). NMFS requested that intermediary nations provide information on the fisheries and nations that are the source of any imported product that they process and export to the United States. Many nations failed to provide this information; NMFS continues to urge them to do so.
Based on the information received or obtained, the following nations are solely intermediary nations: Belarus, Monaco, and Switzerland. Israel is predominantly an intermediary nation except for the export of seaweed, tuna, and freshwater species-derived caviar. Nations are encouraged to identify and indicate the fish and fish products for which they are acting as intermediary nations.
In reviewing the import data, information submitted by nations, and readily available information, NMFS identified twenty-five trading partners that either exported solely freshwater species or had a sporadic or inconsistent export history with the United States. Table 1 summarizes the nations that NMFS has determined will not be included in the LOFF and are not subject to any of the requirements of the MMPA import rule. However, if any of these nations wish to export fish and fish products to the United States, they must contact NMFS and satisfy the requirements of the MMPA import rule.
NMFS assumed that seafood products imported by the U.S. between the years 2000 and 2017 would be a reasonable basis for the list of target species included in the draft LOFF for each harvesting nation, unless the nation indicated that the fishery no longer occurs, the species is a re-export, (
NMFS assumed that species or products that were associated with a gear type were wild caught and not aquacultured, with one exception. Unless occurring in the wild in a given country, NMFS assumed tilapia was produced by aquaculture operation.
To the extent possible, NMFS listed a harvesting nation's fisheries that take place in a foreign Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or on the high seas under that harvesting nation's LOFF, rather than under the LOFF of the nation in whose EEZ the fishing took place.
Where no information was provided by a nation and the U.S. has imported corals, sponges, and/or shells from that nation, these fisheries were designated as a gear type of “hand collection” and subsequently labelled an exempt fishery. There is limited aquaculture of corals for export, though aquaculture-raised coral would also be hand collected and labelled an exempt fishery.
Where nations did not indicate target species and failed to provide fishery information in the form of: (1) A gear type and associated marine mammal interaction, or (2) a gear type and specific area of operation with associated marine mammal interaction, NMFS assumed that any instance of that gear type for any target species, or that gear type operating in a specific area of operation for any corresponding target species also reported, had the same likelihood or prevalence of marine mammal interaction. Any species or bycatch numbers provided in these instances were copied across target fisheries. Nations are encouraged to notice where duplication may have occurred and provide documentation to support changes to the bycatch species or bycatch estimates.
Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish (
NMFS reviewed information from or related to more than 160 trading partners. NMFS eliminated 25 nations from the LOFF (see Table 1 for a list of these nations and the rationale used for eliminating them from the LOFF). The draft LOFF is comprised of 138 nations for a total of 720 exempt and 3,270 export fisheries. The LOFF, an expanded LOFF containing references, a list of Intermediary nations and their associated products, and list of fisheries and nations where the rule does not apply can found at
Below is a table containing the twenty largest imports by volume and value, an assessment of the data they provided, and their risk of marine mammal bycatch. NMFS based its assessment of the quality of the data supplied by
Chile, Peru, Argentina, and Ecuador have large numbers of small gillnet, purse seine, and trawl vessels with marine mammal bycatch. Canada's pot fisheries for lobster and snow crab have high levels of large whale bycatch. Canada also has bycatch in its gillnet fisheries and permits the intentional killing of marine mammals in aquaculture operations. Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam have large processing and aquaculture sectors; their vulnerability lies in their apparent inability to assess and mitigate marine mammal bycatch. If these nations estimate their marine mammal bycatch or provide more detailed information about their fishery operations, NMFS may be able to reclassify as exempt additional fisheries.
The Russian Federation, Japan, Mexico, and China provided little to no information to enable a full assessment of their fisheries and level of marine mammal risk. Japan's marine mammal bycatch is particularly large in its pound net fisheries, whereas the Russian Federation's bycatch is predominantly in its pot and trawl fisheries. Mexico's marine mammal bycatch includes its gillnet and trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of California. India's fishery bycatch is predominantly in its coastal gillnet fisheries which includes tens of thousands of vessels. Taiwan has bycatch in their longline fisheries and their drift gillnet fisheries. The United Kingdom has bycatch of harbor porpoise and common dolphins in gillnet and trawl fisheries.
Nations, some not on this list, with a high level of documented marine mammal bycatch include South Korea (pound nets and gillnets); New Zealand (all gear types, especially trawl); and Australia (trawl and longline). However, NMFS recognizes that this evaluation may be highly influenced by the advanced assessment capabilities of these nations. New Zealand and Norway may be the only nations to have currently calculated a bycatch limit. Norway's information demonstrates bycatch of harbor porpoise, gray seal, and harbor seal in excess of the bycatch limit in its gillnet fisheries.
In addition to the requested information in this
1. Should all marine aquaculture involving lines, such as seaweed, mussels, oysters, and other shellfish be considered an exempt fishery? Why or why not?
2. Should net pen aquaculture for tuna be considered an exempt fishery? Why or why not?
3. Should net cage aquaculture for finfish be considered an exempt fishery? Why or why not?
4. Should lift net or other such nets be considered an exempt fishery? Why or why not?
5. Would nations prefer to submit their information in the form of a database?
6. Should nations with only exempt fisheries be allowed to apply for a comparability finding every eight years rather than every four years?
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Shasta McClenahan (File Nos. 17350, 20523, 20605, 21045, and 21114), Carrie Hubard (File No. 16111 and 20311), Sara Young (File No. 20043), Courtney Smith (File No. 21170), and Jennifer Skidmore (File No. 16580) at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.
The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Credit Union Advisory Council (CUAC or Council) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). The notice also describes the functions of the Council.
The meeting date is Thursday, September 7, 2017, 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. eastern daylight time.
The meeting location is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Crystal Dully, Outreach and Engagement Associate, 202-435-9588,
Section 2 of the CUAC Charter provides that pursuant to the executive and administrative powers conferred on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by section 1012 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Director established the Credit Union Advisory Council under agency authority.
Section 3 of the CUAC Charter states that the purpose of the Advisory Council is to advise the Bureau in the exercise of its functions under the Federal consumer financial laws as they pertain to credit unions with total assets of $10 billion or less.
The Credit Union Advisory Council will discuss Know Before You Owe overdraft and financial empowerment initiatives. Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Written comments will be accepted from interested members of the public and should be sent to
The Council's agenda will be made available to the public on Wednesday, August 23, 2017, via
A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The U.S. Army's Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) announces that, unless there is an objection, after 15 days it contemplates granting a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to University of Central Florida, College of Optics and Photonics, 4304 Scorpius Street, Orlando, FL 32816-2700.
Objections must be received within 15 days of this notice.
Send written objections or inquires to U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research and Development Center (AMRDEC), ATTN: RDMR-CST (ORTA), 5400 Fowler Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, or Email:
Cindy Wallace at 256-313-0895.
Additional information about CRADAs may be found at
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board will take place.
Open to the public Wednesday, September 13, 2017 from 9:25 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
The address for the Open Session of the meeting is the Army Navy Country Club, 1700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
Alexander Sabol, (703) 681-0577 (Voice), 703-681-0002 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Defense Security Service, DoD.
60-day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the DSS Office of Information Management, Russell Knox Building, 27130 Telegraph Rd., Quantico, VA 22134 or email
Respondents are security professionals who provide information to DSS in order to process facility security clearances (FCL), report changes of the facility that may affect the FCL, and managing incident response. In addition to this standard processing, NISS will enable security staff to communicate with their DSS representative pursuant to requirement DoD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. The NISS will be an integrated automated solution that will facilitate efficient execution of the Agency's core mission. NISS will allow users to manage large amounts of information through increased automated workflows to ensure accuracy, create linkages in data, and close the gap of missing data elements.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of the Navy (DoN) announces its intent to prepare a supplement to the 2015 Final Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS).
Public comments will be accepted during the 30-day scoping period from August 22, 2017 to September 21, 2017. Public scoping meetings will not be held. However, public meetings are planned to occur following the release of the Draft Supplemental EIS/OEIS in early 2019.
The DoN invites scoping comments on the NWTT Supplemental EIS/OEIS from all interested parties. Substantive comments may be provided by mail to the address below and through the project Web site at
John Mosher, (360) 257-3234,
The DoN will assess the potential environmental effects associated with ongoing and future at-sea military readiness activities conducted within the NWTT EIS/OEIS Study Area (hereafter known as the “Study Area”) beyond 2020. Military readiness activities include training and research, development, testing, and evaluation (hereafter known as “testing”). The Supplemental EIS/OEIS will include an analysis of training and testing activities using new information available after the release of the 2015 Final EIS/OEIS. New information includes an updated acoustic effects model, updated marine mammal density data, and evolving and emergent best available science. Proposed activities are generally consistent with those analyzed in the 2015 Final EIS/OEIS and are representative of training and testing activities the DoN has been conducting in the Study Area for decades.
The Study Area remains unchanged since the 2015 Final EIS/OEIS. The Study Area is comprised of established maritime operating areas and warning areas in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, including areas within the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the Western Behm Canal in southeastern Alaska. The Study Area includes air and water space within and outside Washington state waters, air and water space outside state waters of Oregon and Northern California, and DoN pierside locations where sound navigation and ranging (sonar) maintenance and testing occur. In the supplement to the 2015 Final EIS/OEIS, the DoN will only analyze those training and testing activities conducted at sea within the Study Area.
As part of this process, the DoN will seek the issuance of federal regulatory permits and authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act to support on-going and future at-sea military readiness activities within the Study Area beyond 2020.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.6, the DoN will invite the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard to be cooperating agencies in preparation of the Supplemental EIS/OEIS.
The DoN's lead action proponent is Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Additional action proponents include Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Air Systems Command.
The DoN's Proposed Action is to conduct at-sea training and testing activities within the Study Area. Activities include the use of active sonar and explosives while employing marine species protective mitigation measures. The Proposed Action does not alter the DoN's original purpose and need as discussed in the 2015 Final EIS/OEIS.
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to maintain a ready force, which is needed to ensure the DoN can accomplish its mission to maintain, train, and equip combat-ready naval
Proposed training and testing activities are generally consistent with those analyzed in the 2015 Final EIS/OEIS. In the Supplemental EIS/OEIS, the DoN will analyze the proposed changes to the tempo and types of training and testing activities, accounting for the introduction of new technologies, the evolving nature of international events, advances in warfighting doctrine and procedures, and changes in the organization of vessels, aircraft, weapons systems, and DoN personnel. In the NWTT Supplemental EIS/OEIS, the DoN will reflect the compilation of training and testing activities required to fulfill the DoN's military readiness requirements beyond 2020, and therefore includes the analysis of newly proposed activities and changes to previously analyzed activities.
In the Supplemental EIS/OEIS, the DoN will evaluate the potential environmental effects of a no action alternative and action alternatives. Resources to be evaluated include, but are not limited to, marine mammals, sea turtles, essential fish habitat, threatened and endangered species, and American Indian and Alaska Native Traditional Resources.
The scoping process is used to identify public concerns and local issues to be considered during the development of the Draft Supplemental EIS/OEIS. Federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, the public, and interested persons are encouraged to provide substantive comments to the DoN on environmental resources and issue areas of concern the commenter believes the DoN should consider.
Comments must be postmarked or received online by September 21, 2017 for consideration during the development of the Draft Supplemental EIS/OEIS. Comments can be mailed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Attention: NWTT Supplemental EIS/OEIS Project Manager, 3730 North Charles Porter Avenue, Building 385, Oak Harbor, Washington 98278-3500. Comments can be submitted online via the project Web site at
In notice document 2017-09167, appearing on pages 21204 through 21208, in the issue of Friday, May 5, 2017, make the following corrections:
1. On page 21207, in the second column, on the second line, the entry that reads “I certify that I ___”, should read:
2. On the same page, in the same column, on the nineteenth line, the entry that reads “I certify that I ___”, should read:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Information collection extension, with changes; notice and request for comment.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) intends to extend with changes for three years with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Certification Reports, Compliance Statements, Application for a Test Procedure Waiver, and Recordkeeping for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment subject to Energy or Water Conservation Standards Package under OMB No. 1910-1400. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before October 23, 2017.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
The docket Web page can be found at
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. Email:
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-1400; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Certification Reports, Compliance Statements, Application for a Test Procedure Waiver, Application for Extension of Representation Requirements, Labeling, and Recordkeeping for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment subject to Federal Energy or Water Conservation Standards; (3) Type of Request: Renewal with changes; (4) Purpose:
Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),
Covered products and covered equipment are described in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. These covered products and covered equipment, including all product or equipment classes, include: (1) Consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; (2) Room air conditioners; (3) Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps; (4) Consumer water heaters; (5) Consumer furnaces and boilers; (6) Dishwashers; (7) Residential clothes washers; (8) Clothes dryers; (9) Direct heating equipment; (10) Cooking products; (11) Pool heaters; (12) Television sets; (13) Fluorescent lamp ballasts; (14) General service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps; (15) Faucets; (16) Showerheads; (17) Water closets; (18) Urinals; (19) Ceiling fans; (20) Ceiling fan light kits; (21) Torchieres; (22) Compact fluorescent lamps; (23) Dehumidifiers; (24) External power supplies; (25) Battery chargers; (26) Candelabra base incandescent lamps and intermediate base incandescent lamps; (27) Commercial warm air furnaces; (28) Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; (29) Commercial heating and air conditioning equipment; (30) Commercial water heating equipment; (31) Automatic commercial ice makers; (32) Commercial clothes washers; (33) Distribution transformers; (34) Illuminated exit signs; (35) Traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules; (36) Commercial unit heaters; (37) Commercial pre-rinse spray valves; (38) Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines; (39) Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers and certain components; (40) Metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures (41) Integrated light-emitting diode lamps; (42) General service lamps; (43) Furnace fans; (44) Pumps; (45) Commercial packaged boilers; (46) Consumer miscellaneous refrigeration equipment; (47) Portable air conditioners; (48) Compressors; (49) Electric motors, and (50) Small electric motors.
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For consumer products, relevant provisions of the Act specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296). For covered equipment, relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
DOE is seeking to renew its information collection related to the following aspects of the appliance standards program: (1) Gathering data and submitting certification and compliance reports for each basic model distributed in commerce in the U.S. including supplemental testing instructions for certain commercial equipment; (2) maintaining records underlying the certified ratings for each basic model including test data and the associated calculations; (3) applications for a test procedure waiver, which manufacturers may elect to submit if they manufacture a basic model that cannot be tested pursuant to the DOE test procedure; (4) applications requesting an extension of the date by which representations must be made in accordance with any new or amended DOE test procedure; and (5) labeling.
DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and comprehensive information about the energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to-date efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
As the result of a negotiated rulemaking, DOE adopted additional certification requirements for commercial HVAC, water heater, and refrigeration equipment. Specifically, DOE requires manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment and some types of commercial HVAC
On December 18, 2014, Congress enacted the EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-263, “Service Parts Act”). That law exempted manufacturers of certain external power supplies (“EPSs”) that were made available as service and spare parts for end-use products manufactured before February 10, 2016, from the energy conservation standards that DOE promulgated in its February 2014 rule. See 79 FR 7846 (Feb. 10, 2014). Additionally, the Service Parts Act permits DOE to require manufacturers of an EPS that is exempt from the 2016 standards to report to DOE the total number of such EPS units that are shipped annually as service and spare parts and that do not meet those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(ii)) DOE may also limit the applicability of the exemption if the Secretary determines that the exemption is resulting in a significant reduction of the energy savings that would result in the absence of the exemption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(5)(A)(iii)) In a final rule published on May 16, 2016, DOE adopted reporting requirements for EPS manufacturers to provide the total number of exempt EPS units sold as service and spare parts for which the manufacturer is claiming exemption from the current standards. 81 FR 30157.
DOE currently requires manufacturers or their party representatives to prepare and submit certification reports and compliance statements using DOE's electronic Web-based tool, the Compliance and Certification Management System (CCMS), which is the primary mechanism for submitting certification reports to DOE. CCMS currently has product and equipment specific templates which manufacturers are required to use when submitting certification data to DOE. DOE believes the availability of electronic filing through the CCMS system reduces reporting burdens, streamlines the process, and provides the Department with needed information in a standardized, more accessible form. This electronic filing system also ensures that records are recorded in a permanent, systematic way.
Manufacturers also may rely on CCMS reporting to satisfy certain reporting requirements established by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). EPCA directs the FTC generally to prescribe labeling rules for the consumer products subject to energy conservation standards under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6296) The required labels generally must disclose the estimated annual operating cost of such product (determined in accordance with Federal test procedures); and information respecting the range of estimated annual operating costs for covered products to which the rule applies. (42 U.S.C 6296(c)(1)) Pursuant to EPCA, the FTC prescribed the Energy Labeling Rule, which in part, requires manufacturers to attach yellow EnergyGuide labels to many of the covered consumer products. See 16 CFR part 305. EnergyGuide labels for most products subject to the FTC labeling requirement contain three key disclosures: Estimated annual energy cost (16 CFR 305.5); a product's energy consumption or energy efficiency rating as determined from DOE test procedures (
The Energy Labeling Rule also contains reporting requirements for most products, under which manufacturers must submit data to the FTC both when they begin manufacturing new models and on an annual basis thereafter. 16 CFR 305.8. These reports must contain, among other things, estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings, similar to what is required under DOE's reporting requirement.
However, in 2013 the FTC streamlined and harmonized its reporting requirements by giving manufacturers the option to report FTC-required data through DOE's CCMS, in lieu of the traditional practice of submitting directly to FTC. 78 FR 2200 (Jan. 10, 2013); 16 CFR 305.8(a)(1). As such, the CCMS reduces duplicative reporting for manufacturers of covered consumer products that are also required to report under the FTC Energy Label Rule.
DOE allows manufacturers of both consumer products and/or commercial equipment to apply for a test procedure waiver. Manufacturers may submit an application for a test procedure waiver at his or her discretion if it is determined that the basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or if the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. The Department currently uses and will continue to use the information submitted in the application for a waiver as the basis for granting or denying the petition. See 10 CFR 430.27 for additional information on petitions for waivers and for consumer products. See 10 CFR 431.401 for additional information on petitions for waivers for commercial equipment.
DOE also allows manufacturers of both consumer products and/or commercial equipment to submit applications requesting an extension of the date by which representations must be made in accordance with any new or amended DOE test procedure. DOE may grant extensions of up to 180 days if it determines that making such representations would impose an undue hardship on the petitioner. The Department currently uses and will continue to use the information submitted in these applications as the basis for granting or denying the petition.
In addition to the FTC labeling requirements for consumer products discussed, EPCA directs DOE to establish labeling requirements for covered industrial and commercial equipment when specified criteria is met. If the Department has prescribed test procedures for any class of covered equipment, a labeling rule applicable to such class of covered equipment must be prescribed. (42 U.S.C. 6315(a)) EPCA, however, requires that certain criteria must be met prior to DOE prescribing a given labeling rule. Specifically, DOE must determine that: (1) Labeling is technologically and economically feasible with respect to any particular equipment class; (2) significant energy savings will likely result from such labeling; and (3) labeling is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. (42 U.S.C. 6315(h)) DOE has established labeling requirements under the authority in 42 U.S.C. 6315 for electric motors (10 CFR 431.31), walk-in coolers and freezers (10 CFR 431.305), and pumps (10 CFR 431.466).
(4) Proposed changes to the information collection, including
DOE is considering revisions to the CCMS that would facilitate a reduction in duplicative reporting under the California's Appliance Efficiency Regulations, similar to what was achieved with the FTC. Under its Appliance Efficiency Regulations, California requires manufacturers to certify and report to the California Energy Commission energy efficiency data of certain consumer products. See, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20, section 1606. For consumer products that are reported to the California Energy Commission and are subject to Federal test procedures, the California regulations generally require submission of data from those Federal test procedures (
(5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 2000;
(6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 20,000;
(7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 675,000 (30 hours per certification, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information; 16 additional hours for creating supplement testing instructions for commercial HVAC, water heating, and refrigeration equipment manufacturers; 160 hours for test procedure waiver preparation; 160 hours for representation extension request preparation; 1 hour for creating and applying a label for walk-in cooler and freezer, commercial and industrial pump, and electric motor manufacturers);
(8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $67,500,000.
Section 326(d) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6296); 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on August 11, 2017, pursuant to Rule 204 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.204, Laramie river DevCo LP filed a petition for temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting requirements of sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act and parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations for a new crude petroleum gathering system to be located in the Colorado, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 25, 2017.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of settlement.
Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with Victor Kung, Pearl Pacific Properties LLC and East Best LLC concerning the Former Douglas Battery Site located in Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until October 23, 2017. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods: Internet:
•
•
Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 6, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 18, 2017.
1.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of GSA Per Diem Bulletin FTR 18-01, Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 CONUS per diem reimbursement rates.
GSA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 per diem reimbursement rates review has resulted in lodging and meal allowance changes for certain locations within CONUS to provide for reimbursement of Federal employees' subsistence expenses while on official travel.
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Jill Denning, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 202-208-7642, or by email at
GSA issues and publishes the CONUS per diem rates, formerly published in Appendix A to 41 CFR Chapter 301, solely on the Internet at
This process, implemented at 68 FR 22314, on April 28, 2003, for per diem reimbursement rates, and in 2015 for the M&IE breakdown table, ensures more timely changes in per diem reimbursement rates established by GSA for Federal employees on official travel within CONUS. Notices published periodically in the
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of a Bulletin.
The purpose of this notice is to inform federal agencies that FTR Bulletin 17-04, pertaining to the authorization of and reimbursement for use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) or innovative mobility technology companies by Federal travelers on temporary duty, is now available online at
Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 202-219-2349, or by email at
Please cite Notice of FTR Bulletin 17-04.
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 efforts 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 comments on the information collection extension request titled “Adverse Events among Persons on Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection.”
Written comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0061 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 Surveillance for Severe Adverse Events among Persons on Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection—(OMB Control No. 0920-0773, expires 01/17/2018)—Extension—Division of Tuberculosis Elimination (DTBE), National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As part of the national tuberculosis (TB) elimination strategy, the American Thoracic Society and CDC have published recommendations for targeted testing for TB and treatment for latent TB infection (LTBI) (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 2000;49[RR06];1-54). However, between October 2000 and September 2004, the CDC received reports of 50 patients with severe adverse events (SAEs) associated with the use of the two or three-month regimen of rifampin and pyrazinamide (RZ) for the treatment of LTBI; 12 (24%) patients died (MMWR 2003;52[31]:735-9). In 2004, CDC began collecting reports of SAEs among persons on treatment regimen for LTBI.
For surveillance purposes, an SAE was defined as any drug-associated reaction resulting in a patient's hospitalization or death after at least one treatment dose for LTBI. During 2004-2016, CDC received 66 reports of SAEs among recipients of isoniazid (INH)-only (n=44), INH-rifapentine (RPT) (n=20), rifampin (RIF) (n=1) and INH/Levofloxacin (n=1) for LTBI. Among INH-only recipients, seven died; five, including one child, underwent liver transplantation. Among INH-RPT, RIF, and INH/Levofloxacin recipients, length of hospitalization ranged 1-20 (median: 3) days; no liver transplants or deaths were reported. The RIF recipient had an acute kidney injury but recovered after three hemodialysis treatments [Severe Adverse Events (Hospitalization or Death) Among Persons on Treatment for Latent Tuberculosis Infection, United States, January 2004-December 2016. Presented at the NAR/IUATLD Conference, Vancouver, Canada, February 2017]. Ten of the SAEs were published in Powell, K, et al. Severe Isoniazid-associated Liver Injuries among Persons Being Treated for Latent Tuberculosis Infection-United States, 2004-2008. MMWR 2010; 59:224-9.
Reports of SAEs related to LTBI treatment regimens have prompted a need for this project—a national
The CDC seeks to request OMB approval for a three-year extension of the previously approved National Surveillance for Severe Adverse Events Associated with Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection—(OMB No. 0920-0773, expires January 17, 2018). This project will continue the passive reporting system for SAEs associated with therapy for LTBI. The system will rely on medical chart review and/or onsite investigations by TB control staff.
Potential respondents are any of the 60 reporting areas for the national TB surveillance system (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and 7 jurisdictions in the Pacific and Caribbean).
CDC will collect data using the data collection form for SAEs associated with LTBI treatment. Based on previous reporting, CDC anticipates receiving an average of six responses per year from the 60 reporting areas. The data collection form is completed by healthcare providers and health departments for each reported hospitalization or death related to treatment of LTBI and contains demographic, clinical, and laboratory information.
CDC will analyze and periodically publish reports summarizing national LTBI treatment adverse events statistics and will conduct special analyses for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals to further describe and interpret these data.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) collects data on adverse events related to drugs through the FDA MedWatch Program. CDC is encouraging health departments and healthcare providers to report SAEs to FDA. Reporting will be conducted through telephone, email, or during CDC site visits.
In this request, CDC is requesting approval for approximately 36 burden hours annually. The only cost to respondents is time to gather medical records and time to complete the reporting form.
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 Medical Monitoring Project, which collects interview and medical record data on a probability sample of HIV-diagnosed persons in order to provide national estimates of access to and utilization of HIV-related medical care and services, the quality of HIV-related ambulatory care, and HIV-related behaviors and clinical outcomes.
Written comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0060 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 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
Medical Monitoring Project (MMP)—(OMB Control Number 0920-0740 Expiration 6/30/2018)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) requests a revision of the currently approved Information Collection Request: “Medical Monitoring Project” expiring June 30, 2018. This data collection addresses the need for national estimates of access to and utilization of HIV-related medical care and services, the quality of HIV-related ambulatory care, and HIV-related behaviors and clinical outcomes.
For the proposed project, the same data collection methods will be used as for the currently approved project. Data would be collected from a probability sample of HIV-diagnosed adults in the U.S. who consent to an interview and abstraction of their medical records. As for the currently approved project, de-identified information would also be extracted from HIV case surveillance records for a dataset, referred to as the minimum dataset, which is used to assess non-response bias, for quality control, to improve the ability of MMP to monitor ongoing care and treatment of HIV-infected persons, and to make inferences from the MMP sample to HIV-diagnosed persons nationally.
No other Federal agency collects such nationally representative population-based information from HIV-diagnosed adults. The data are expected to have significant implications for policy, program development, and resource allocation at the state/local and national levels.
The changes proposed in this request update the data collection system to meet prevailing information needs and enhance the value of MMP data, while remaining within the scope of the currently approved project purpose. The result is a 11% reduction in burden, or a reduction of 786 total burden hours annually. Specifically, the removal of three unfunded project areas reduces the number of interviews conducted and the number of persons for whom healthcare facility staff will be asked for contact information, assistance with approaching for participation, and pulling medical records.
Changes were made that did not affect the burden, listed below:
• Sampled persons found to have resided in a non-funded project area on the date of sampling will be considered ineligible for the project, because non-funded project areas were deemed ineligible in the first stage of sampling.
• Tracking data reports will no longer be sent to CDC, as this information is no longer needed.
• The average token of appreciation for participants has been increased from $25 to $50.
• Changes have been made to the respondent consent form to decrease the reading comprehension level and clarify whom participants should contact for different concerns.
• Forty-two data elements were removed from the minimum data set and forty data elements were added. Because these data elements are extracted from the HIV surveillance system from which they are sampled, these changes do not affect the burden of the project.
This proposed data collection would supplement the National HIV Surveillance System (NHSS, OMB Control No. 0920-0573, Exp. 6/30/2019) in 23 selected state and local health departments, which collect information on persons diagnosed with, living with, and dying from HIV infection and AIDS.
The participation of respondents is voluntary. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. Through their participation, respondents will help to improve programs to prevent HIV infection as well as services for those who already have HIV.
The LIHEAP Model Plan is an electronic form and is submitted to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Community Services (OCS) through the On-line Data Collection (OLDC) system within GrantSolutions, which is currently being used by all LIHEAP grantees to submit other required LIHEAP reporting forms. In order to reduce the reporting burden, all data entries from each grantee's prior year's submission of the Model Plan in OLDC is saved and re-populated (cloned) into the form for the following fiscal year's application.
OCS seeks renewal of this form without any changes. A sample model plan showing these proposed changes can be found on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ACF/OCS LIHEAP Program Resources page at:
On April 3, 2017, ACF published a
The revised model plan can be viewed on the OCS Web site at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee (PAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comments.
The meeting will be held on September 11, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and September 12, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The hotel's telephone number is 301-468-1100. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-4885. The docket will close on September 13, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by that date. Late, untimely comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 13, 2017. The
Comments received on or before August 28, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.
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 make 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
Marieann Brill, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5154, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-3838,
On September 11, 2017, the PAC will discuss the use of prescription opioid products containing hydrocodone or codeine for the treatment of cough in pediatric patients. The discussion will include current practice for the treatment of cough in children and benefit-risk considerations regarding the use of prescription opioid products in pediatric patients.
On September 12, 2017, the PAC will meet to discuss the following products (listed by FDA Center):
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material will be available at:
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Marieann Brill at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 21, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
In the
Section 50.23(e)(1) (21 CFR 50.23(e)(1)) provides an exception to the general rule that informed consent is required for the use of an investigational in vitro diagnostic device. This exception applies to those situations in which the in vitro investigational diagnostic device is used to prepare for, and respond to, a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorism event or other public health emergency, if the investigator and an independent licensed physician make the determination and later certify in writing that: (1) There is a life-threatening situation necessitating the use of the investigational device, (2) obtaining informed consent from the subject is not feasible because there was no way to predict the need to use the investigational device when the specimen was collected and there is not sufficient time to obtain consent from the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and (3) no satisfactory alternative device is available. Under the rule, these determinations are made before the device is used, and the written certifications are made within 5 working days after the use of the device. If use of the device is necessary to preserve the life of the subject and there is not sufficient time to obtain the determination of the independent licensed physician in advance of using the investigational device, § 50.23(e)(2) provides that the certifications must be made within 5 working days of use of the device. In either case, the certifications are submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and, under § 50.23(e)(3) (76 FR 36989, June 24, 2011), to FDA within 5 working days of the use of the device.
Section 50.23(e)(4) provides that an investigator must disclose the investigational status of the device and what is known about the performance characteristics of the device at the time test results are reported to the subject's health care provider and public health authorities, as applicable. Under § 50.23(e)(4), the investigator provides the IRB with the information required by § 50.25 (21 CFR 50.25) (except for the information described in § 50.25(a)(8)) and the procedures that will be used to provide this information to each subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
FDA estimates that there are approximately 150 laboratories that could perform testing that uses investigational in vitro diagnostic devices to identify chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents. FDA estimates that in the United States each year there are approximately 450
Based on its knowledge of similar types of submissions, FDA estimates that it will take about 1 hour to prepare a report disclosing the investigational status of the in vitro diagnostic device and what is known about the performance characteristics of the device and submit it to the health care provider and, where appropriate, to public health authorities.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 21, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 409(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(a)) provides that a food additive shall be deemed to be unsafe, unless: (1) The additive and its use, or intended use, are in conformity with a regulation issued under section 409 of the FD&C Act that describes the condition(s) under which the additive may be safely used; (2) the additive and its use, or intended use, conform to the terms of an exemption for investigational use; or (3) a food contact notification submitted under section 409(h) is effective. Food additive petitions (FAPs) are submitted by individuals or companies to obtain approval of a new food additive or to amend the conditions of use permitted
Section 721(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(a)) provides that a color additive shall be deemed to be unsafe unless the additive and its use are in conformity with a regulation that describes the condition(s) under which the additive may safely be used, or the additive and its use conform to the terms of an exemption for investigational use issued under section 721(f). Color additive petitions (CAPs) are submitted by individuals or companies to obtain approval of a new color additive or a change in the conditions of use permitted for a color additive that is already approved. Section 71.1 of the Agency's regulations (21 CFR 71.1) specifies the information that a petitioner must submit to establish the safety of a color additive and to secure the issuance of a regulation permitting its use. FDA's color additive labeling requirements in § 70.25 (21 CFR 70.25) require that color additives that are to be used in food, drugs, medical devices, or cosmetics be labeled with sufficient information to ensure their safe use.
FDA scientific personnel review FAPs to ensure the safety of the intended use of the additive in or on food, or that may be present in food as a result of its use in articles that contact food. Likewise, FDA personnel review CAPs to ensure the safety of the color additive prior to its use in food, drugs, medical devices, or cosmetics.
Interested persons may transmit FAP or CAP regulatory submissions in electronic format or paper format to the Office of Food Additive Safety in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition using Form FDA 3503. Form FDA 3503 helps the respondent organize their submission to focus on the information needed for FDA's safety review. Form FDA 3503 can also be used to organize information within a master file submitted in support of petitions according to the items listed on the form. Master files can be used as repositories for information that can be referenced in multiple submissions to the Agency, thus minimizing paperwork burden for food and color additive approvals. FDA estimates that the amount of time for respondents to complete Form FDA 3503 will continue to be 1 hour.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimate of burden for food additive or color additive petitions is based on FDA's experience with the petition process. The burden for this information collection has changed since the last OMB approval because the Generally Recognized as Safe affirmations have been removed pursuant to the implementation of “Substances Generally Recognized as Safe; Final Rule,” August 17, 2016 (81 FR 54960), 21 CFR parts 20, 25, 170, 184, 186, and 570. FDA is retaining its prior estimate of the number of petitions received because the average number of petitions received annually has varied little over the past 10 years. The figures for hours per response are based on estimates from experienced persons in the Agency and in industry. Although the estimated hour burden varies with the type of petition submitted, an average petition involves analytical work and appropriate toxicological studies, as well as the work of drafting the petition itself. The burden varies depending on the complexity of the petition, including the amount and types of data needed for scientific analysis.
Color additives are subjected to payment of fees for the petitioning process. The listing fee for a color additive petition ranges from $1,600 to $3,000, depending on the intended use of the color additive and the scope of minimum information needed for labeling in order that food and color manufacturers may comply with all applicable provisions of the FD&C Act and other specific labeling acts administered by FDA. Labeling information does not require any additional information gathering beyond what is already required to assure conformance with all specifications and limitations in any given food or color additive regulation. Labeling information does not have any specific recordkeeping requirements unique to preparing the label. Therefore, because labeling requirements under § 70.25 for a particular color additive involve information required as part of the CAP safety review process, the estimate for number of respondents is the same for §§ 70.25 and 71.1, and the burden hours
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 21, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) provides us with the authority to regulate cosmetic products in the United States. Cosmetic products that are adulterated under section 601 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 361) or misbranded under section 602 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 362) may not be distributed in interstate commerce. We have developed the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP) to assist us in carrying out our responsibility to regulate cosmetics.
FDA is revising forms for the VCRP (Forms FDA 2511, 2512, 2512a, and 2514) currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0027, “Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program,” for the following reasons: (1) Modernizing the forms; (2) Making it easier for filers who complete the forms; and (3) reducing the time it will take FDA to review each submission. In addition, Form FDA 2514 will be eliminated as it duplicates information that is currently located on Form FDA 2512. FDA requests PRA approval for the proposed changes to these forms, and for the elimination of Form FDA 2514.
Participation in the VCRP is voluntary under provisions found in sections parts 710 and 720 (21 CFR parts 710 and 720). Participants have the option of submitting information via paper forms or via the online interface. The term “form” refers to both the paper form and the online system.
Currently, in part 710, we request that establishments that manufacture or package cosmetic products voluntarily register with us using Form FDA 2511 entitled “Registration of Cosmetic Product Establishment.” The online version of Form FDA 2511 is available on our VCRP Web site at
Because registration of cosmetic product establishments is not mandatory, voluntary registration provides FDA with the best information available about the locations, business trade names, and types of activity (manufacturing or packaging) of cosmetic product establishments. We place the registration information in a computer database and use the information to generate lists for distributing regulatory information and for inviting firms to participate in workshops on topics in which they may be interested. Registration is permanent, although we request that respondents submit an amended Form FDA 2511 if any of the originally submitted information changes.
FDA's proposed changes to the forms through the use of an electronic submission system have been designed to make it easier for participants to provide information to FDA about their products. The system also assists participants, through interactive question and response scenarios, to identify submissions that will be ineligible to be accepted in VCRP because they do not meet parts 710 and 720 requirements. The electronic submission system is expected to reduce burden currently associated with the manual identification process for filers and FDA. The rejection rate for ineligible submissions when using the current forms is high: 51 percent for new accounts, 43 percent for Form FDA 2511 registrations, and 7 percent for Form FDA 2512 filings (2010-2016).
The revised forms include the addition of links between Forms FDA 2511 and 2512, clarification of what information should be entered onto the forms, additional self-identifying fields, removal of certain duplicative fields, and the deletion of Form FDA 2514. These changes are needed because both VCRP voluntary filer participation and FDA resources required to administer VCRP have increased significantly since 2014 (
FDA's current process confirms that each submission meets the requirements established in parts 710 and 720 by using a manual process for both filers and FDA reviewers that may result in a long waiting period where filers must wait and respond to questions generated by FDA, which may result in a high rejection rate. FDA projects a significant reduction in rejection rates when using the revised forms. Examples of possible burden savings for participants and FDA include:
(1) Form FDA 2511 asks filers if they are a manufacturer or packer; however, in the past, distributors and retailers have checked these boxes in error when neither applies to them because there are no distributor or retailer checkboxes on Form FDA 2511. Retailers have also filed Form FDA 2512 in error even though only manufacturers, packers,
(2) FDA revised Form FDA 2511 and added questions asking, “Are you the owner or operator of this facility?” and “Is the address on this form the location of a cosmetic manufacturing and/or packing facility?”
(3) FDA also revised Form FDA 2512 and added questions asking, “Is this product currently commercially distributed (annual sales exceed $1,000) in the United States?”, “PRODUCT WEBSITE”, and “Attach images of the front and back product labels to this form” to ensure that only cosmetics in commercial distribution in the United States are filed in the VCRP.
(4) FDA linked Forms FDA 2511 and 2512 to reduce burden to filers who create multiple copies of Form FDA 2512 that share the same establishment addresses.
(5) FDA clarified the information that should be included on the forms by attaching simplified instructions and a link to VCRP online on Forms FDA 2511, 2512, and 2512a and adding titles and locations of various fields throughout Forms FDA 2511, 2512, and 2512a. We also added self-identifying information such as phone number, email, and alternative authorized individual fields to Forms FDA 2511 and 2512 to facilitate communication with the filers.
(6) We also removed fields that have no modern use or request redundant information in multiple locations.
(7) We removed Form FDA 2514 in its entirety due to redundancy. (As noted, filers may notify FDA that they are discontinuing a cosmetic product formulation on Form FDA 2512).
FDA's online filing system is available on FDA's VCRP Web site at
We place cosmetic product filing information in a computer database and use the information when FDA receives inquiries about cosmetics marketed in the United States. Because filing of cosmetic product formulations is not mandatory, voluntary filings with FDA provide us with the best information available about cosmetic products, ingredients, frequency of use, businesses engaged in the manufacture and distribution of cosmetics, and approximate rates of product discontinuance and formula modifications. The information assists our scientists in evaluating reports of adverse events submitted via MedWatch and Field Operators (FACTS). We also use the information in identifying future research projects, to evaluate the levels and safety of certain ingredients in cosmetics.
Links to explanations of the revisions to Forms FDA 2511, 2512, and 2512a and instructions are available at
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We base our estimate of the total annual responses on paper and online submissions received during calendar year 2016. We base our estimate of the hours per response upon information from cosmetic industry personnel and FDA experience entering data submitted on paper Forms FDA 2511, 2512, and 2512a into the online system.
We estimate that, annually, 934 establishments that manufacture or package cosmetic products will each submit 1 registration on Form FDA 2511, for a total of 934 annual responses. Each submission is estimated to take 0.20 hour per response for a total of 186.8 hours, rounded to 187. The number of Form FDA 2511 submissions has increased 405 percent compared to 2014 and we have no indication that this submission rate will stop increasing. We estimate that, annually, firms that manufacture, pack, or distribute cosmetics will file 7,108 ingredient statements for new or amended submissions on Forms FDA 2512 and FDA 2512a. Each submission is estimated to take 0.33 hour per response for a total of 2345.64 hours, rounded to 2,346. We estimate the number of Form FDA 2512 submissions to increase 67 percent compared to 2014 and we have no indication that this submission rate will stop increasing. We estimate that, annually, firms that manufacture, pack, or distribute
Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS.
Notice.
This notice acknowledges that in accordance with section 1890(b)(5)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) has received and reviewed the National Quality Forum (NQF) Report of 2016 Activities to Congress and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services submitted by the consensus-based entity with whom the Secretary has a contract under section 1890(a) of the Act. The purpose of this
Sophia Chan, (410) 786-5050.
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) has long recognized that a high functioning health care system that provides higher quality care requires accurate, valid, and reliable measurement of quality and efficiency. Section 1890(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as added by section 183(a)(1) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Pub. L. 110-275), requires the Secretary to identify and have in effect a contract with a consensus-based entity (CBE) to perform multiple duties described in subsection (b) that are designed to help improve performance measurement. The duties described in subsection (b) originally included a priority setting process, measure endorsement, measure maintenance, electronic health record promotion, and the preparation of an annual Report to Congress and the Secretary. Section 3003(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Pub. L. 111-152) (collectively, the Affordable Care Act) expanded the duties of the CBE to require the CBE to review and, as appropriate, endorse the episode grouper developed by the Secretary under the Physician Feedback Program. Section 3014(a)(1) of the Affordable Care Act further expanded the duties to require the CBE to convene multi-stakeholder groups to provide input on the selection of quality and efficiency measures and national priorities for improvement in population health and in the delivery of health care services for consideration under the national strategy, and to transmit such input to the Secretary. Section 3014(a)(2) of the Affordable Care Act expanded the requirements for the annual report that must be submitted under section 1890(b)(5)(A) of the Act.
To meet the requirements of section 1890(a) of the Act, in January of 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded a competitive contract to the National Quality Forum (NQF). A second, multi-year contract was awarded to NQF after an open competition in 2012. This contract includes the following duties:
• The implementation of quality and efficiency measurement initiatives and the coordination of such initiatives with quality and efficiency initiatives implemented by other payers;
• Recommendations on an integrated national strategy and priorities for health care performance measurement;
• Performance by the CBE on the duties required under its contract with HHS;
• Gaps in endorsed quality and efficiency measures, including measures that are within priority areas identified by the Secretary under the national strategy established under section 399HH of the Public Health Service Act (National Quality Strategy), and where quality and efficiency measures are unavailable or inadequate to identify or address such gaps;
• Areas in which evidence is insufficient to support endorsement of quality and efficiency measures in priority areas identified by the Secretary under the National Quality Strategy, and where targeted research may address such gaps; and
• The convening of multi-stakeholder groups to provide input on: (1) the selection of quality and efficiency measures from among such measures that have been endorsed by the CBE and those that have not been considered for endorsement by the CBE but are used or proposed to be used by the Secretary for the collection or reporting of quality and efficiency measures; and (2) national priorities for improvement in population health and the delivery of health care services for consideration under the National Quality Strategy.
The statutory requirements for the CBE to annually Report to Congress and the Secretary of HHS also specify that the Secretary must review and publish the CBE's annual report in the
This
Once again we thank the National Quality Forum (NQF) and the many stakeholders who participate in NQF projects for helping to advance the science and utility of health care quality measurement. As part of its annual recurring work to maintain a strong portfolio of endorsed measures for use across varied providers, settings of care, and health conditions, NQF reports that in 2016 it updated its portfolio of approximately 600 endorsed measures by reviewing and endorsing or re-endorsing 197 measures and removing 87 measures. Endorsed measures facilitate the goals of improving care for highly prevalent conditions, fostering better care and coordination, and making the healthcare system more responsive to patient and family needs. These endorsed measures address a wide range of health care topics relevant to HHS programs, including: Person- and family-centered care; care coordination; palliative and end-of-life care; cardiovascular care; behavioral health; pulmonary/critical care; perinatal care; cancer treatment; patient safety; and cost and resource use.
In addition to adding and re-endorsing new and existing measures, some measures were also removed from the portfolio for a variety of reasons (for example, no longer meeting endorsement criteria; harmonization with other similar measures; retirement by the measures developers; replacement with improved measures; and lack of continued need because providers consistently perform at the highest level on those measures). This continuous refinement of the measures portfolio through the measures maintenance process ensures that quality measures remain aligned with current field practices and health care goals. NQF also reports that in 2016 it continued to support the National Quality Strategy (NQS) by endorsing measures linked to the NQS priorities and convening diverse stakeholder groups to reach consensus on key strategies for performance measurement.
In addition, in 2016 NQF undertook and continued a number of projects to address difficult quality measurement issues and reduce the burden of quality measures for clinicians. An important area that NQF continued to address was the issue of attribution, or the process used to assign accountability for a patient and his or her quality outcomes to a clinician, a group of clinicians, or a facility. HHS agrees that engaging clinicians and clearly communicating the methods and benchmarks used to determine attribution are foundational principles in quality measurement. Having clear methods for attribution helps clinicians understand the information given to them from quality measures, and allows for clinicians to make actionable changes to their clinical practices. When clinicians receive meaningful feedback regarding performance measurement, they can use it to implement best practices. Clear performance data reduce clinicians' burden in deciphering quality measurement information and allows them to focus on how best to improve care. While attribution models may differ, clinician engagement, transparency, and clear, usable data remain fundamental to quality measurement.
NQF's work on attribution began in 2015 when NQF convened a multi-stakeholder committee to examine attribution models and recommend principles to guide the selection and implementation of approaches. This work has resulted in a thorough list of potential approaches to validly and reliably attribute performance measurement results to one or more clinicians under different delivery models and to identify models of attribution for potential testing. The committee first convened in December 2015 and performed an environmental scan to identify attribution models currently in use and models that have been proposed but not implemented. The environmental scan identified 171 unique attribution models, 27 of which have been implemented and 144 of which remain proposals only. The models differed across care settings, payment models, and in methodology, but there were also areas of similarity. After reviewing and discussing the scan, the committee defined several guiding principles to inform the development of
Attribution is just one of many areas in which NQF partners with HHS in enhancing and protecting the health and well-being of all Americans. Quality measurement is essential to a high-functioning healthcare system, as evidenced in many of the targeted projects that NQF is being asked to undertake. HHS greatly appreciates the ability to bring many and diverse stakeholders to the table to help develop the strongest possible approaches to quality measurement as a key component of our healthcare system. We look forward to a continued strong partnership with the National Quality Forum in this ongoing endeavor.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
In this Addendum, we are publishing the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning
Open: 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Closed: 1:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) is updating the NIH Strategic Plan for Women's Health Research for the period 2018 to 2022. Considerable advancements in science make it prudent to update the existing strategic plan
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its Working Groups will meet to discuss various issues related to the training and fitness of merchant marine personnel. The meetings will be open to the public.
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee and its Working Groups are scheduled to meet on Thursday, September 14, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., and the full Committee is scheduled to meet on Friday September 15, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Please note that these meetings may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meetings will be held at Seattle University, in the Bannan Auditorium, 901 12th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122-1090 (
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the
Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1128, fax 202-372-8385 or
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the
The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, codified at Title 46, United States Code, section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by the Commandant. The Committee shall also review and comment on proposed U.S. Coast Guard regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments by the Secretary, and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private sector and with State or local governments; and shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.
The agenda for the September 14, 2017, meeting is as follows:
(1) The full Committee will meet briefly to discuss the Working Groups' business/task statements, which are listed under paragraph 3(a)-(g) below.
(2) Public comment period.
(3) Working Groups will separately address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013, International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers rulemaking;
(b) Task Statement 89, Review and update of the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC.1014, “Guidelines on Fatigue Mitigation and Management”;
(c) Task Statement 96, Review and comment on the course and program approval requirements including 46 CFR 10.402, 10.403, 10.407 and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs;
(d) Task Statement 98, Continue the progress made by the military services towards meeting the goals on the use of Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and National Mariner Endorsements as identified in the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 and subsequent legislation;
(e) Task Statement 99, Review and comment on the “Guidelines for Issuing Endorsement for Tankerman PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels” policy letter (CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17);
(f) Task Statement 101, Provide feedback and avenues to further enhance open communication between external stakeholders and the U.S. Coast Guard's mariner credentialing program regarding all aspects of the program;
(g) Task Statement 102, Consider and make recommendations regarding the current requirement for a U.S. Merchant Mariner to read and write using English;
(h) Task Statement 103, Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(4) Reports of Working Groups. At the end of the day, the Working Groups will report to the full Committee on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full Committee will not take action on these reports on this date. Any official action taken as a result of these Working Group meetings will be taken on day two of the meeting.
(5) Public comment period.
(6) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the September 15, 2017, full Committee meeting is as follows:
(1) Introduction.
(2) Swear in newly appointed Committee members.
(3) Remarks from U.S. Coast Guard Leadership.
(4) Designated Federal Officer announcements.
(5) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
(6) Reports from the following Working Groups:
(a) Task Statement 87, Review of policy documents providing guidance on the implementation of the December 24, 2013, International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers rulemaking;
(b) Task Statement 89, Review and update of the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Safety Committee Circular MSC.1014, “Guidelines on Fatigue Mitigation and Management”;
(c) Task Statement 96, Review and comment on the course and program approval requirements including 46 CFR 10.402, 10.403, 10.407 and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 03-14 guidelines for approval of training courses and programs;
(d) Task Statement 98, continue the progress made by the military services towards meeting the goals on the use of Military Education, Training and Assessment for STCW and National Mariner Endorsements as identified in the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014 and subsequent legislation;
(e) Task Statement 99, Review and comment on the “Guidelines for Issuing Endorsement for Tankerman PIC Restricted to Fuel Transfers on Towing Vessels” policy letter (CG-MMC Policy Letter No. 01-17);
(f) Task Statement 101, Provide feedback and avenues to further enhance open communication between external stakeholders and the U.S. Coast Guard's mariner credentialing program regarding all aspects of the program;
(g) Task Statement 102, consider and make recommendations regarding the current requirement for a U.S. Merchant Mariner to read and write using English;
(h) Task Statement 103, Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(7) Other items for discussion:
(a) Report on the Implementation of the 2010 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping;
(b) Report on National Maritime Center activities from the National Maritime Center Commanding Officer, such as the net processing time it takes for mariners to receive their credentials after application submittal;
(c) Report on Mariner Credentialing Program Policy Division activities, such as its current initiatives and projects;
(d) Report on International Maritime Organization/International Labor Organization issues related to the merchant marine industry; and
(e) Briefings about on-going U.S. Coast Guard projects related to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine.
(8) Public comment period.
(9) Discussion of Working Group recommendations.
The Committee will review the information presented on each issue, deliberate on any recommendations presented by the Working Groups, and approve/formulate recommendations. Official action on these recommendations may be taken on this date.
(10) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(11) Adjournment of meeting.
A public comment period will be held during each Working Group and full Committee meeting concerning matters being discussed.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
Public comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, listed in the
Please note that the meeting may adjourn early if the work is completed.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U. S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Navigation Safety Advisory Council.
The Navigation Safety Advisory Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to navigation systems.
Completed applications should be submitted to the U. S. Coast Guard on or before October 23, 2017.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Navigation Safety Advisory Council that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
• By
•
•
Mr. George Detweiler, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Navigation Safety Advisory Council; 202-372-1566 or email at
The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is a federal advisory committee authorized by 33 U.S.C. 2073 and chartered under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix).
The Navigation Safety Advisory Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings; Inland Rules of the Road; International Rules of the Road; navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to navigation systems.
The Navigation Safety Advisory Council normally meets twice a year. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other
The Coast Guard will consider applications for seven positions that will be vacant on November 4, 2017, in the following membership categories only:
a. Commercial vessel owners and operators;
b. Professional mariners;
c. Recreational boaters;
d. The recreational boating industry; and
e. The Maritime Law Association.
Each member will be appointed to represent the viewpoints and interests of one of the groups or organizations, and at least one member will be appointed to represent each membership category. All members serve as representatives and are not Special Government Employees as defined in Section 202(a), Title 18, U.S.C.
To be eligible, you should have experience in one of the categories listed above. Members serve terms of office of up to three (3) years. Members may be considered to serve up to two (2) consecutive terms. In the event the Navigation Safety Advisory Council terminates, all appointments to the Council terminate.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Council members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Council, send your cover letter and resume to
Mr. George Detweiler, the Navigation Safety Advisory Council, Alternate Designated Federal Officer via one of
the transmittal methods in the
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee and its Working Groups will meet to discuss matters relating to medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents, medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner education, and medical research. The meetings will be open to the public.
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee and its Working Groups are scheduled to meet on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, and Wednesday, September 13, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Please note that these meetings may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meetings will be held at Seattle University, in the Bannan Auditorium, 901 12th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122-1090 (
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the
Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1128, fax 202-372-8385 or
Notice of this meeting is pursuant with the
The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee Meeting is authorized by section 210 of the U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281, codified at 46 United States Code 7115). The Committee advises the Secretary on matters related to (a) medical certification determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c) medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.
The agenda for the September 12, 2017, meeting is as follows:
(1) Opening remarks from the Designated Federal Officer.
(2) Opening remarks from U.S. Coast Guard leadership.
(3) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
(4) Public comment period.
(5) Working Groups will separately address the following task statements which are available for viewing at
(a) Task statement 15-13, Mariner Occupational Health Risk Study Analysis. This is a joint task statement with the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee;
(b) Task statement 16-24, requesting recommendations on appropriate diets and wellness for mariners while aboard merchant vessels;
(c) Task statement 17-25, requesting recommendations on functions that would be useful to the mariner, ashore and afloat regarding their medical certification;
(d) Task statement 17-26, Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
(e) The Committee may receive new task statements from the U.S. Coast Guard, review the information presented on each issue, deliberate and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.
(7) Adjournment of meeting.
The agenda for the September 13, 2017, meeting is as follows:
(1) Committee work update.
(2) Merchant Mariner Credentialing brief.
(3) National Maritime Center brief.
(4) Marine casualty data analysis presentation.
(5) Continue work on task statements.
(6) Public comment period.
(7) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if applicable, make recommendations for the full Committee to consider for presentation to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Committee may deliberate and vote on the Working Group's recommendations on this date. The public will have an opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full Committee takes any action on each report.
(8) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(9) Adjournment of Meeting.
A public comment period will be held on September 12, 2017, from approximately 11:30 a.m.-12 p.m. and September 13, 2017, from approximately 2:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
Public comments will be limited to 5 minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment periods will end following the last call for comments. Contact Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin as indicated in the
Please note that the meeting may adjourn early if the work is completed.
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. Pittsburgh, PA, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of April 26, 2016.
Intertek USA, Inc. was accredited and approved, as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of April 26, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2019.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, 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., 105 Merchant Lane, Pittsburgh, PA 15205, 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
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or email
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4324-DR), dated July 25, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued July 25, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 25, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Oklahoma resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of May 16-20, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Charles Maskell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Alfalfa, Beckham, Cherokee, Coal, Cotton, Delaware, Johnston, LeFlore, Murray, Muskogee, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, Roger Mills, and Washita Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Oklahoma are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Oregon (FEMA-4328-DR), dated August 8, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 8, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 8, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Oregon resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of January 7-10, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Oregon have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Columbia, Deschutes, Hood River, and Josephine Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Oregon are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4318-DR), dated June 15, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued July 19, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 15, 2017.
Fulton County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance). Searcy County for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Michigan (FEMA-4326-DR), dated August 2, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 2, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 2, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Michigan resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of June 22-27, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Steven W. Johnson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Michigan have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Bay, Gladwin, Isabella, and Midland Counties and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe within Isabella County for Individual Assistance.
All areas within the State of Michigan are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Wyoming (FEMA-4327-DR), dated August 5, 2017, and related determinations.
This declaration was issued August 5, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 5, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Wyoming resulting from flooding during the period of June 7-22, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. McCool, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Wyoming have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Fremont and Park Counties and the Wind River Reservation within Fremont County for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Wyoming are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-4322-DR), dated July 12, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued July 12, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 12, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New York resulting from a severe winter storm and snowstorm during the period of March 14-15, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Seamus K. Leary, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New York have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Albany, Broome, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Dutchess, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Suffolk, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins, and Ulster Counties for Public Assistance.
Albany, Broome, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Cortland, Delaware, Dutchess, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Otsego, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins, and Ulster Counties for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
All areas within the State of New York are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4320-DR), dated June 23, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued July 19, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 23, 2017.
Jackson and Jefferson Counties for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Nebraska (FEMA-4321-DR), dated June 26, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued July 6, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of David G. Samaniego as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4323-DR), dated July 12, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued July 12, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 12, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of North Dakota resulting from flooding during the period of March 23 to April 29, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. McCool, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of North Dakota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Benson, Bottineau, Cavalier, McHenry, Pembina, Pierce, Renville, Rolette, Towner, and Walsh Counties and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Reservation for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of North Dakota are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The effective date of December 21, 2017 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4329-DR), dated August 9, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 9, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 9, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Hampshire resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of July 1-2, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been designated
Grafton County for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of New Hampshire are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4317-DR), dated June 2, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued July 13, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 2, 2017.
Boone, Cape Girardeau, Mississippi, New Madrid, and Scott Counties for Public Assistance. Pemiscot and Ste. Genevieve Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4317-DR), dated June 2, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued July 13, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 2, 2017.
Christian, Crawford, Dent, Iron, Wanye, and Wright Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
Greene and Ste. Genevieve Counties for Individual Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4325-DR), dated August 1, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued August 1, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated August 1, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Nebraska resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight-line winds during the period of June 12-17, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Nebraska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Banner, Box Butte, Butler, Cass, Cuming, Dodge, Douglas, Fillmore, Gage, Jefferson, Morrill, Polk, Sarpy, Saunders, Sheridan, Sioux, Thurston, and Wayne Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Nebraska are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet in person on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 and Thursday, September 14, 2017 in Arlington, Virginia. The meeting will be open to the public.
The TMAC will meet on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and Thursday, September 14, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at 3101 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, 22201. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held on Wednesday, September 13, 2017,
Mark Crowell, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 646-3432, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the
In accordance with the
60-Day Notice of Information Collection for review; Suspicious/Criminal Activity Tip Reporting; OMB Control No. 1653-0049.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), is submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of Chief Information Office, Forms Management Office, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 801 I Street NW., Mailstop 5800, Washington, DC 20536-5800.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Primary: Individuals or households. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) tip reporting capability will facilitate the collection of information from the public and law enforcement partners regarding allegations of crimes enforced by DHS.
(5)
(6)
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0057, abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden for the TSA Exercise Information System (EXIS). EXIS is a web portal designed to serve stakeholders in the transportation industry in regard to security training exercises. EXIS provides stakeholders with transportation security exercise scenarios and objectives, best practices and lessons learned, and a repository of the user's own historical exercise data for use in future exercises. It also allows stakeholders to design and evaluate their own security exercises based on the unique needs of their specific transportation mode or method of operation. Utilizing and inputting information into EXIS is completely voluntary.
Send your comments by October 23, 2017.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone 571-227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Orders (EO) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
TSA will collect five types of information through EXIS. The collection is voluntary. While EXIS users are not required to provide all information requested, if users choose to withhold information, they may not receive the benefits of EXIS associated with that information collection.
1.
In this revision, TSA is modifying the type of user registration information collected. TSA previously collected the User's name, Professional Contact Information, Agency/Company, Job Title, Supervisor's Name, and Employment Verification Contact Information. In the revised collection, TSA will collect: The User's Name, Agency/Organization Name and Type, Job Title, Supervisor or other Sponsor's Name, Professional Phone Number, Professional Email Address, Employment Verification Contact Name, Employment Verification Contact Information, and the Reason for Needing an EXIS account. In addition, the following optional registration information can be added by the user: Professional (business), Country, City, State, Zip Code, Mobile Phone Number, Alternate Email, and Preferred Transportation Sector.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Based on industry population estimates and growth rates, and interest generated amongst the transportation modes during the years following EXIS' release to the public, TSA estimates that there will be approximately 7,885 primary and secondary access users in Year 1, 9,447 users in Year 2, and 11,320 users in Year 3, for an average annual respondents estimate of 9,551. TSA estimates a proportion of primary access users and secondary users will spend approximately 3.5 hours per EXIS user inputting the information described above. TSA estimates secondary users will also spend approximately 0.25 hours completing a survey. Given this information, the total annual hourly burden for EXIS's collection of information is 4,820 hours.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to recover and enhance the survival of endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), prohibits certain activities that may impact endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by September 21, 2017.
Request documents or submit comments to Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at Division of Classification and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103. Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (
Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Division of Classification and Restoration, by U.S. mail at P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6641.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to recover and enhance the survival of endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
In accordance with section 10(c) of the ESA; Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government”; and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009, “Transparency and Open Government” (74 FR 4685; January 26, 2009), all of which call on Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number for the application when submitting comments.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review by any party who submits a written request to the Program Manager for Restoration and Endangered Species Classification at the address listed in the
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species.
All comments and materials we receive in response to these requests will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in
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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of lease reinstatement.
As required under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Emerald Oil, Inc. timely filed a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease NDM 94112, McKenzie County, North Dakota. The lessee paid the required rental and royalties accruing from the date of termination. No leases were issued that affect these lands. The Bureau of Land Management proposes to reinstate the lease.
Kimberly Werven, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669; telephone: 406-896-5091; email:
The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year, and 16
The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of termination, subject to the:
• Original terms and conditions of the lease;
• Additional and amended stipulations;
• Increased rental of $10 per acre;
• Increased royalty of 16
• $159 cost of publishing this Notice.
30 U.S.C. 188.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department at the address in this notice by September 21, 2017.
Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The human remains were removed from a salvage operation in Randolph County, AR.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In 1888, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3RA387 in Randolph County, AR. The human remains were discovered during a salvage operation of site 3RA387 as part of the re-routing of Highway 304. Excavations were undertaken by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. Currently, the remains are being stored at the Arkansas Archeological Survey's curation facility. The gender and age of the human remains were undetermined. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. No diagnostic artifacts were found at site 3RA387 to indicate when these human remains were buried. The cultural and temporal identity of these human remains is difficult to discern and they cannot be clearly culturally affiliated with an Indian tribe.
Officials of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian Tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day federally recognized Indian Tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the federally recognized Indian Tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by September 21, 2017.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from archeological sites in Colbert and Lauderdale Counties, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
From August 5, 1936 to August 13, 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, 309 individuals were removed from the Mulberry Creek site (1CT27) in Colbert County, AL, by the Alabama Museum of Natural History at the University of Alabama (AMNH). TVA acquired this site on March 25, 1936, for the Pickwick Reservoir project. This shell midden site was at the confluence of Mulberry Creek and the Tennessee River. While there are no radiocarbon dates from this site, the stratified distribution of material culture suggests the primary occupation was during the Late Archaic period (4000-1000 B.C.). Ceramics were only found in the upper three feet of this shell midden, suggesting occupations during the Colbert (300 B.C.-A.D. 100) and McKelvey phases (A.D. 500-1000). The human remains and associated funerary objects are in the physical custody of AMNH and include adults, juveniles, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 3,300 associated funerary objects are 3 stone flakes; 2 antler billets; 2 antler punches; 1 anvil stone; 1 atlatl weight; 4 Baldwin Plain body sherds; 1 Baytown Plain var. McKelvey rim sherd; 1 Benton projectile point; 18 chert bifaces; 5 bone beads; 2 bone fids/awls; 1 bone needle; 12 bone pins; 7 bone pin fragments; 1 carved bone pin; 1 chert celt; 3 ceramic sherds; 175 crinoid stems; 1 Cypress Creek projectile point; 1 Elora projectile point; 2 chert drills; 2 shell gorget fragments; 2 hammerstones; 1 hoe, limestone; 1 knife, chert; 8 unidentified projectile points; 1 Little Bear Creek projectile point; 3 Maples projectile points; 4 modified bones; 5 Morrow Mountain projectile points; 1 Mulberry Creek Cordmarked basal sherd; 1 Mulberry Creek projectile point; 54 drilled canine teeth pendants; 2 Pickwick projectile points; 4 triangular projectile points; 8 chert preforms; 1 lot of unmodified shell; 2,903 shell or stone beads; 6 shell gorgets; 1 stone axe; 2 unmodified turtle shells; 32 turtle shell fragments; 6 unmodified bivalve shells; and 8 White Springs projectile points.
From September 22, 1936 to September 30, 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, 481 individuals were removed from the Bluff Creek site (1LU59) in Lauderdale County, AL, by AMNH. TVA acquired this site on December 23, 1936, for the Pickwick Reservoir project, and the excavation was conducted with Federal
From August 24, 1937 to February 11, 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 141 individuals were removed from the O'Neal site (1LU61) in Lauderdale County, AL, by AMNH. TVA acquired this site on December 23, 1936, for the Pickwick Reservoir project. The site is a shell midden adjacent to the Tennessee River, but because of inclement weather and the early closure of the Pickwick Dam, only two trenches were dug into this site. The primary occupation of the site took place during the Late Archaic period (4000-1000 B.C.). The human remains and associated funerary objects are in the physical custody of AMNH and include adults, juveniles, children, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 676 associated funerary objects include 1 antler flaker; 1 antler tine; 1 bear tooth; 1 biface; 1 Bluff Creek Simple Stamped sherd; 1 bone awl/fid; 1 bone pin; 2 stone drills; 6 jasper beads; 2 modified antler; 1 modified bone; 1 Flint Creek projectile point; 4 Little Bear Creek projectile point; 1 McIntire projectile point; 6 unidentified projectile points; 644 shell beads; and 2 shell gorgets/pendants.
From August to September of 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, 7 individuals were removed from the Meander Scar site (1LU62) in Lauderdale County, AL, by AMNH. TVA acquired this site on August 23, 1935, for the Pickwick Reservoir project. Due to persistent flooding at the confluence of Bluff Creek and the Tennessee River, excavations were limited, and there are no radiocarbon dates from this site. The pottery recovered indicates occupations during the Woodland period (300 B.C.-A.D. 1000). The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include fragmented remains of adults and children of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
From May 20 to June 9, 1936, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were removed from site 1LU63 in Lauderdale County, AL, by AMNH. TVA acquired this site on October 28, 1936, for the Pickwick Reservoir project, and the excavation was conducted with Federal funds in anticipation of the reservoir construction. This site was one of two burial mounds in the area, and the mound was trenched and systematically excavated vertically with a focus on identifying burial pits. Four soil zones modified by human activity were identified, and although there are no radiocarbon dates, funerary objects indicate that the mound was created during the Middle Woodland Copena phase (A.D. 100-500). The human remains and associated funerary objects are in the physical custody of AMNH including adults and an infant of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 17 associated funerary objects include 1 conch shell cup; 2 copper earspools; 2 copper earspool fragments; 1 copper reel gorget; and 11 galena nodules.
In July of 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were removed from Colliers Cave (1LU494) in Lauderdale County, AL, by the University of Alabama field school. TVA acquired this site on March 28, 1936, for the Pickwick Reservoir project. The site is a large cave that consists of a main passage and several side passages, with evidence of pot-hunting and excavations. The University of Alabama field school excavated two test pits and a trench, but the chronological placement of the site is unknown. The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include three adults and one infant of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
From June 29 to July 1, 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, 23 individuals were removed from site 1LU495 in Lauderdale County, AL, by the University of Alabama field school. TVA acquired this site on February 18, 1937, for the Pickwick Reservoir project The site is a cave adjacent to Coffee Slough in the vicinity of Seven Mile Island. The University of Alabama field school excavated two small units, but the chronological placement of the site is unknown. The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH but are too small to identify the sex of the individuals with ages ranging from 6 months to 30 years old. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were surface collected from Coffee Cave (1LU499) in Lauderdale County, AL, by the University of Alabama field school. TVA acquired this site on November 23, 1936. Coffee Cave is adjacent to Coffee Slough in the vicinity of Seven Mile Island. The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and are too fragmentary to identify the sex but include two juveniles between 11 and 12 years old; one young adult between 15 and 25 years old; and one adult, 18 years or older. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their presence in prehistoric archeological sites and osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 977 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 4,795 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• The Treaty of September 20, 1816, indicates that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma have declined to accept transfer of control of the human remains.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), TVA has decided to transfer control of the funerary objects associated with the culturally unidentifiable human remains to The Chickasaw Nation.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
The TVA is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department at the address in this notice by September 21, 2017.
Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The human remains were removed from a bluff shelter in Madison County, AR.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arkansas professional staff for the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
In 1991, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3MA238 in Madison County, AR, during an excavation of a borrow pit for White River Bridge Replacement. The appropriate authorities, including Dr. Jerome Rose, were notified and determined that the human remains were Native American. At the request of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, the human remains were taken to the Osteology Laboratory of the University of Arkansas for forensic analysis and have remained in storage at the lab at the University of Arkansas. Currently, the human remains are being stored at the Arkansas Archeological Survey's curation facility.
The human remains were identified as two adults (30-45 years). The human remains consisted of one male and one female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. No diagnostic artifacts were found at site 3MA238 to indicate when these human remains were buried. The cultural and temporal identity of these human remains is difficult to discern and they cannot be clearly culturally affiliated with an Indian tribe.
Officials of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Cherokee Nation, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department is responsible for notifying the Cherokee Nation, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Peabody Museum of Natural History has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Peabody Museum of Natural History at the address in this notice by September 21, 2017.
Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT. The human remains were removed from a village near Anvik, Yukon-Koyukuk Borough, AK.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Peabody Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with a representative of Anvik Village.
In 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from a village near Anvik, Yukon-Koyukuk Borough, AK, by the Yale Peabody Museum Alaska Expedition. The human remains represent one adult female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Archeological evidence, historic documentation, and tribal knowledge suggest the lower Yukon River region, including the location of the modern site of Anvik Village, was occupied both prehistorically and historically by the Deg Hit'an. The continuity of culture exhibited in the region supports a cultural affiliation between the individual human remains and the Deg Hit'an who are today represented in this area by Anvik Village.
Officials of the Peabody Museum of Natural History have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and Anvik Village.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Professor David Skelly, Director, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, telephone (203) 432-3752, by September 21, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to Anvik Village may proceed.
The Peabody Museum of Natural History is responsible for notifying Anvik Village that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Federally recognized Indian Tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Federally recognized Indian Tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Representatives of any Federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Federally recognized Indian Tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by September 21, 2017.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from archeological sites in Franklin County, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
From 1978 to 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, 31 individuals were removed from the Ricker site (1FR310) in Franklin County, AL, by the Alabama Museum of Natural History at the University of Alabama (AMNH). TVA acquired this site on August 18, 1977, for the Cedar Creek Reservoir project. Material culture recovered from this site indicates occupations during the Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.), Middle Woodland Lick Creek phase (A.D. 1-300), and Mississippian period (A.D. 1200-1500). The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include children, juveniles, and adults. There are three individuals identified as male and 28 individuals of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Between September 3 and 18, 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were removed from site 1FR528, in Franklin County, AL, by AMNH. TVA acquired this site on January 31, 1972, for the Little Bear Creek Reservoir project. Field notes indicate that the site was a stone mound that had been disturbed by looters, and no individual burial units were isolated during excavation. Sherds of limestone-tempered, fabric-marked pottery were found during the excavation and suggest the mound may have been constructed during the Middle Woodland Lick Creek phase (A.D. 1-300). The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include infants, juveniles, and adults of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
From May 26 to August 4, 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 629 individuals were removed from the Johnson Mound site (1FR571) in Franklin County, AL by AMNH. TVA acquired this site on March 16, 1976, for the Cedar Creek Reservoir project. This site was a small stone mound on the edge of a high bluff in an area of limestone outcrop overlooking the Middle Cedar Creek Valley and had been extensively damaged. Two uncalibrated radiocarbon dates were derived from this site, A.D. 850 ±50 and A.D. 1070 ±70. Studies have suggested that both dates are too late and that this mound is from the Lick Creek phase (A.D. 1-300) during the Middle Woodland period. The human remains and associated funerary objects are in the physical custody of AMNH and include adults, juveniles, children, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 12 associated funerary objects are 1 crinoid stem; 9 shell beads; 1 shell gorget; and 1 soil sample.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their presence in prehistoric archeological sites and osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 672 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 12 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the
• The Treaty of September 20, 1816, indicates that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma have declined to accept transfer of control of the human remains.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), TVA has decided to transfer control of the funerary objects associated with the culturally unidentifiable human remains to The Chickasaw Nation.
Representatives of any Federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
The TVA is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate federally recognized Indian Tribes, and has determined that a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day federally recognized Indian Tribes cannot be reasonably traced. Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to TVA. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the federally recognized Indian Tribe stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to TVA at the address in this notice by September 21, 2017.
Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of TVA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple archeological sites in Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan Counties, AL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by TVA professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas); Cherokee Nation; Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama); The Chickasaw Nation; The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (hereafter referred to as “The Consulted Tribes”).
In June of 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 104 individuals were removed from site 1LA16 in Lawrence County, AL, by the Alabama Museum of Natural History at the University of Alabama (AMNH). TVA acquired this site on February 14, 1934, for the Wheeler Reservoir project. Flooding prevented extensive excavation of the site, which is now permanently inundated. There are no radiocarbon dates for this site. The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include adults, juveniles, children, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At some time during the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 1LI19 in Limestone County, AL, by James Cambron. TVA acquired this site on August 7, 1934, for the Wheeler Reservoir project, but no formal excavations were conducted. Stone tools associated with the Archaic period were collected from the site. The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include one adult, approximately 18 years old, of indeterminate sex. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At some time during the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from sites 1LI20 and 1LI21 in Limestone County, AL, by James Cambron. TVA acquired these sites on November 24, 1934, for the Wheeler Reservoir project, but no formal excavations were conducted. Both sites were described as earthen mounds with no chronological placement. The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include one adult male, 30-40 years old, and one adult female, 30-40 years old, from site 1LI20; and one adult female, approximately 50 years old, from site 1LI21. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At some time during the 1950s, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from sites 1LI25 and 1LI26 in Limestone County, AL, by James Cambron. TVA acquired these sites on December 17, 1935, for the Wheeler Reservoir project, but no formal excavations were conducted. Site 1LI25 was described as an earthen mound, but no chronological placement was determined for either site. The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include one individual, 10-13 years old, of indeterminate sex, from site 1LI25; and one adult of indeterminate sex from site 1LI26. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In March of 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 46 individuals were removed from site 1LI36, in Lawrence County, AL, by AMNH. TVA acquired this site on December 17, 1935, for the Wheeler Reservoir project, and the excavation was conducted with Federal funds in anticipation of the inundation of this site. The site was a shell mound adjacent to the river bank with two raised areas designated Mounds A and B. Mound A was excavated by C.B. Moore in 1914, but artifacts from that excavation are not under TVA's control. Mound B had some evidence of stratification with hearths and burned clay floors, but it is difficult to determine if this mound was primarily due to the collection of village midden, mussel shell, and flood soils over time, or intentionally constructed earthen work. There are no radiocarbon dates available for this site, but artifacts suggest at least two occupations: a Late Woodland McKelvey II phase (A.D. 700-1000) and a Mississippian Hobbs Island phase (A.D. 1200-1450). The human remains and associated funerary objects are in the physical custody of AMNH and include infants, adolescents, and adults of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects are one antler tool, one Mississippi Plain jar, and one Mississippi Plain hemispherical bowl.
From January 1939 to April 1940, human remains representing, at minimum, 232 individuals were removed from the Whitesburg Bridge site (1MA10) in Madison County, AL. TVA acquired this site on July 6, 1936, for the Wheeler Reservoir project, and excavations of both trenches and blocks identified five natural zones (strata). Limestone-tempered Long Branch Fabric Marked ceramics from Zone B suggests an occupation during the Colbert phase (300 B.C.-A.D. 100). Zones D and E were considered pre-ceramic by the excavators and most of the human remains were recovered from Zone D. The presence of ground sandstone and soapstone vessels and Wade and Cotaco Creek projectile points suggest a Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.) to Early Woodland (1000-500 B.C.) occupation. The human remains and associated funerary objects are in the physical custody of AMNH and include adults, juveniles, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. The 1,800 associated funerary objects are 2 bar gorgets; 4 bone awls; 1 bone billet; 2 bone pins; 7 bone punches; 2 bone shaft-wrench; 14 celts (whole and fragments); 1 Cotaco Creek projectile point; 1 Ebenezer projectile point ; 1 grooved stone axe; 1 ground stone tool; 4 ground stone fragments; 1 hafted limestone tool; 1 hammerstone; 2 wolf jaws (headdress); 3 limestone hoes; 1 limestone hoe fragment; 2 limestone fragments; 1 flaked and ground limestone tool; 1 chert knife; 1 Little Bear Creek projectile point; 3 unidentified projectile points; 1 chert preform; 2 sandstone bowls; 224 sandstone bowl sherds; 175 shell and copper beads; 1,217 shell beads; 1 siltstone fragment; 6 soapstone bead fragments; 110 soapstone bowl sherds; 1 stone bead; 2 turtle plastrons; and 5 Wade projectile points.
From February to March of 1934, human remains representing, at minimum, 80 individuals were removed from site 1MG2 in Morgan County, AL, by AMNH. TVA acquired two parcels of land encompassing this site on March 15, 1935, and July 24, 1935, for the Wheeler Reservoir project.The excavation was conducted with Federal funds in anticipation of the inundation of this site. There are no radiocarbon dates from this site, but artifacts suggest occupations from the Late Archaic (4000-1000 B.C.) to the Late Woodland (500-900 B.C.). The human remains are in the physical custody of AMNH and include adults, juveniles, and infants of both sexes. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of TVA have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on their presence in prehistoric archeological sites and osteological analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 468 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 1,803 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
• The Treaty of September 20, 1816, indicates that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Chickasaw Nation.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1)(ii), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; The Chickasaw Nation; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The Chickasaw Nation has declined to accept transfer of control of the human remains.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(4), TVA has decided to transfer control of the funerary objects associated with the culturally unidentifiable human remains to the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Representatives of any federally recognized Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Thomas O. Maher, TVA, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT11D, Knoxville, TN 37902-1401, telephone (865) 632-7458, email
The TVA is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Nevada State Museum have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the address in this notice by September 21, 2017.
Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC, and in the physical custody of the Nevada State Museum, Carson City, NV. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple sites near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
In 1954, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0005 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 734/2091) were discovered by a member of the public. Nevada State Museum staff collected the remains and funerary objects. They have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects are two strings of shells and one fur robe.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from site 26WA0274 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 775, 776, 851, and 852) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals were removed from site 26WA0275 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 840, 841, 842, 846, 853, 854, 855, 856, and 6037) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. The 429 associated funerary objects include basketry fragments, beads, cordage, flakes, projectile points, wood fragments, animal bones, bark, twigs, and stone materials.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0280 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 777) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 26WA0291 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 778, 779, and 2015) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. The 213 associated funerary objects include basketry fragments, cordage, flakes, projectile points, plant fragments, and stone materials.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0292 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 783) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 26WA0314 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 780, 781, and 782) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 26WA0315 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 850, 859, and 2119) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0321 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 784) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0322 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 785) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from site 26WA0349 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 786, 787, and 788) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0382 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 2170) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0384 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 790) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, thirteen individuals were removed from site 26WA0385 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, and 803) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0389 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 2169) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site 26WA0404 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 870 and 871) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. The 28 associated funerary objects include faunal material, stones, and wood fragments.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0413 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 2171) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0459 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 804) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, twelve individuals were removed from site 26WA0525 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 835, 836, 837, 844, 845, 847, 848, 849, 857, 858, 866, and 877) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. The 1,883 associated funerary objects include basketry fragments, beads, basketry, cordage, flakes, projectile points, faunal remains, plant fragments, twigs, and stone materials.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0528 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 805) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0529 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 806) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0609 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 807) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0613 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 808) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0714 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 2172) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0729 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 809) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0745 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 810) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0814 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 811) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1965, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0882 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 812) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 26WA0953 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHUR 813) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Sometime during 1973-1974, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site 26WA1014 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 2013 and 2014) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from site 26WA1016 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 862, 863, 864, and 865) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. The 18 associated funerary objects include debitage and stones.
In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, fifteen individuals were removed from site 26WA1018 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 815, 875, 876, and 2176) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On or before 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from site 26WA1019 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 816, 2005, 2006A, and 2007) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were removed from site 26WA1021 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, and 726) were removed by Nevada State Museum staff under an Antiquities Act permit and have been housed at the Nevada State Museum since being collected. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects are cobble fragments.
In 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from site 26WAo224 near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 2001 and 2017) were removed by amateur archeologists and donated to the Nevada State Museum where they have been housed since then. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
On unknown dates between 1965 and 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, forty individuals were removed from unknown sites near Pyramid Lake in Washoe County, NV. The human remains (AHURs 703, 704, 705, 706, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 827, 828, 829, 830, 833, 834, 861, 868, 869, 873, 874, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2035, 2065, 2158, 2159, 2160, 2161, 2162, and 2178) were removed by amateur archeologists, tribal police, and the general public, and donated to the Nevada State Museum where they have been housed since then. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Geographic, historic, and anthropological evidence indicates that the human remains are Native American. The sites from which the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed are within the boundaries of the Pyramid Lake Reservation. Historic documents, archeological and consultation evidence, including tribal oral history, indicate that this area has been occupied by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, NV, since precontact times. Based on this evidence, the human remains have been determined to be culturally affiliated with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
Officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 147 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 2,576 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna Pardo, Museum Program Manager/NAGPRA Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 12220 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 6084, Reston, VA 20191, telephone (703) 390-6343, email
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for notifying the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada, that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-585-586 and 731-TA-1383-1384 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of stainless steel flanges from China and India, provided for in subheadings 7307.21.10 and 7307.21.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the governments of China and India. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by October 2, 2017. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by October 10, 2017.
August 16, 2017.
Justin Enck (202-205-3363), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
August 25, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-583 and 731-TA-1381 (Preliminary) (Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination on August 28, 2017; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on September 5, 2017.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
August 30, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-1339 (Final) (Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by September 11, 2017.
5. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-382 and 731-TA-800, 801, and 803 (Third Review) (Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by September 20, 2017.
6. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Notice of appointments.
The following persons have been appointed to the ONDCP Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board: Dr. Terry Zobeck (as Chair), Mr. Michael Gottlieb, Ms. Michele Marx, and Mr. Kemp Chester.
Please direct any questions to Michael Passante, Deputy General Counsel (202) 395-6709, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC 20503.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 12, 2017.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Web cast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Peter Knudson at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory issue summary; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory issue
Submit comments by September 21, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Carmen Franklin, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 301-415-2386, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0181 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0181 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Humans are integral to the safe operation of nuclear power plants. In the late 1970s, the NRC began to focus on ensuring adequate training of plant staff to perform their assigned tasks. The NRC studied the effects of shift work on health, and whether control room simulators would improve training, both factors affecting performance. The agency uses human factors information provided by licensees, as required by § 50.73(b)(2)(ii)(J) of title 10 of the
The NRC issues RISs to communicate with stakeholders on a broad range of regulatory matters. This may include communicating and clarifying the NRC's technical or policy positions on regulatory matters that have not been communicated to, or are not broadly understood by, the nuclear industry.
The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft RIS 2017-XX. The NRC staff will make a final determination regarding issuance of the RIS after it considers any public comments received in response to this request.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of August 21, 28, September 4, 11, 18, 25, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 21, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 28, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 11, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 18, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 25, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data Collection.”
Submit comments by September 21, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0206), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Mail Stop: T-2 F43, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0275 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0275 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data Collection.” The NRC hereby informs
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
30-day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 30 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before September 21, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
a.
b.
c.
d.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of Combined Federal Campaign (OCFC), Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the implementation of a new information collection request, Combined Federal Campaign Annuitant Pledge Form, which include OPM Form 1654-B.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 23, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Office of Combined Federal Campaign, 1900 E Street NW., Room 6464, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Marcus Glasgow or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Office of Combined Federal Campaign, 1900 E
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The Office of Personnel Management is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) is the world's largest and most successful annual workplace philanthropic giving campaign. The mission of the CFC is to promote and support philanthropy through a program that is employee-focused, cost-efficient, and effective in providing all federal employees the opportunity to improve the quality of life for all. With the signing of Executive Order 13743 on October 13, 2016, authorizing the solicitation of federal annuitants, the Combined Federal Campaign Annuitant Pledge Form will be used to collect and process federal annuitant and military retirees' pledges through the Combined Federal Campaign.
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.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the date on which certain changes concerning the continued listing requirements for exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) in the Nasdaq Rule 5700 Series, as well as a related amendment to Nasdaq Rule 5810 (Notification of Deficiency by the Listing Qualifications Department), are implemented.
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation date of these changes until July 1, 2018. Given the scope of the proposed rule changes, the Exchange believes that this will ensure that ETP issuers have adequate time to develop and put into operation the new processes and systems necessitated by them.
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.
On September 30, 2016, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change, as subsequently amended by Amendments No. 1 and 2 thereto, and as supplemented by two clean-up filings
On May 3, 2017, the Exchange filed to extend the implementation date from August 1, 2017 until October 1, 2017.
Since the Proposed Rule Change was approved, the Exchange has engaged in extensive conversations with issuers of listed ETPs, industry advocacy groups and index providers to discuss the new rule requirements and offer guidance on rule interpretation and application.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the implementation date of the Proposed Rule Change to July 1, 2018 to provide listed ETP issuers with the time needed to develop and test their compliance procedures. In support of its proposal, the Exchange notes that the Proposed Rule Change imposes significant new compliance requirements on issuers that they have not been subject to previously. To meet these new compliance requirements, issuers must develop internal systems as well as coordinate with third-party service providers, such as index providers, to develop procedures by which they can obtain essential data. Listed issuers have informed the Exchange that they are unable to complete this extensive project by the pending October 1, 2017 implementation date. The Exchange believes that it is critical for listed ETP issuers to have the appropriate procedures and systems in place to monitor and evidence ETP compliance with the new continued listing rules before such rules are implemented. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date for the Proposed Rule Change until July 1, 2018.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors because it will enable listed issuers to have the systems and procedures needed to monitor and evidence compliance with the Proposed Rule Change prior to such rule being implemented. Providing
For these reasons, Nasdaq believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
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, as amended. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will facilitate listed issuer ability to monitor and evidence compliance with approved continued listing rules by providing issuers with additional time to develop and test their internal systems and procedures prior to the implementation date.
The Exchange received a copy of a letter from the Investment Company Institute, on behalf of listed ETP issuers, to the SEC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective August 1, 2017. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries,
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule effective August 1, 2017. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the fees for Firm Electronic transactions in Penny Pilot issues, and to offer an incentive for ATP Holders to electronically transact business of Broker-Dealers, Firms, Non-NYSE American Market Makers, and Professional Customers (“Non Customer/Non Market Maker Interest”) on the Exchange.
Currently, the Exchange charges $0.42 per contract for Electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues that clear in the Firm range. The Exchange proposes to modify that fee to $0.47, which is similar to transaction charges fees paid on other exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to offer reduced fees to encourage ATP Holders to transact additional Non Customer/Non Market Maker Interest on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed increased fee for Firm Electronic transactions in Penny Pilot Issues is reasonable as it is competitive with rates changes by other options exchanges for Firm transactions.
The Exchange believes that the proposed reduced fees for Non-Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest executed on the Exchange are fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange believes the proposed reduced rates are reasonably designed to encourage ATP Holders that transact Non-Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest to direct this order flow to the Exchange. To the extent this goal is achieved, the Exchange would improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The proposed rates are fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they apply equally to all ATP Holders that transact Non-Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest. In addition, the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Non-Customer/Non-Market Maker Interest qualifies for the reduced fees, any increase in this type of order flow would attract greater volume and liquidity of all account type [sic] to the Exchange, which benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed reduced rates are not unfairly discriminatory to Market Makers or Customers. The Exchange offers separate incentives to Market Makers, which incentives take into account the distinct obligations of Market Makers) [sic]. Further, the Exchange does not impose any fee on Electronic executions of Customer interest.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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 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.
By letter dated August 16, 2017 (the “Letter”), as supplemented by conversations with the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets, counsel for IndexIQ ETF Trust (the “Trust”), on behalf of the Trust and one of its investment portfolios, the IQ Real Return ETF (the “Fund”), NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) or other national securities exchanges on or through which shares issued by the Fund (“Shares”) may subsequently trade, ALPS Distributors, Inc. (the “Distributor”), and persons or entities engaging in transactions in Shares (collectively, the “Requestors”), requested exemptions, or interpretive or no-action relief, from Rule 10b-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M, in connection with secondary market transactions in Shares and the creation or redemption of aggregations of Shares of at least 50,000 shares (“Creation Units”).
The Trust is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Fund is a “fund of funds” that is passively managed according to an index. The Fund is designed to track the performance of the IQ Real Return Index (“Index”), which seeks to provide investors with a hedge against the U.S. inflation rate by providing a “real return,” or a return above the rate of inflation, as represented by the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”).
At least 80% of the Fund's portfolio holdings are, and will be, shares of some or all of the exchange-traded products (“ETPs”) that constitute the Index. The Fund operates in a manner very similar to that of the ETPs held in its portfolio. Some or all of the remaining 20% may be invested in securities that are not Index constituents that the Fund's adviser believes will help the Fund track the Index, as well as cash, cash equivalents and various types of financial instruments including, but not
The Letter states that the Fund is relying on Class Relief Letters (as defined in the Letter), but is seeking individual relief for the same reasons as did nine other investment portfolios of the Trust
The Requestors represent, among other things, the following:
• Shares of the Fund will be issued by the Trust, an open-end management investment company that is registered with the Commission;
• The Trust will continuously redeem Creation Units at net asset value (“NAV”), and the secondary market price of the Shares should not vary substantially from the NAV of such Shares;
• Shares of the Fund will be listed and traded on the NYSE Arca (the “Exchange”) or other exchange in accordance with exchange listing standards that are, or will become, effective pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act;
• Each ETP in which the Fund is invested will meet all conditions set forth in a relevant class relief letter,
• The value of the Index will be publicly disseminated by a major market data vendor throughout the trading day, and all of the components of the Index will have publicly available last sale trade information;
• On each business day before the opening of business on the Exchange, the Fund's custodian, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation, will make available the list of the names and the numbers of securities and other assets of the Fund's portfolio that will be applicable that day to creation and redemption requests;
• The Exchange or other market information provider will disseminate every 15 seconds throughout the trading day through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association an amount representing the current value of the cash and securities held in the portfolio of the Fund (not including corporate actions, expenses, and other adjustments made to such portfolio throughout the day) (“Estimated NAV”);
• At least 80% of the Fund's portfolio holdings are, and will be, shares of some or all of the ETPs that are the Index constituents;
• The Fund will invest in securities that will facilitate an effective and efficient arbitrage mechanism and the ability to create workable hedges;
• The Requestors believe that arbitrageurs can be expected to take advantage of price variations between the Fund's market price and its NAV;
• The arbitrage mechanism will be facilitated by the transparency of the Fund's portfolio and the availability of the Estimated NAV, the liquidity of securities and other assets held by the Fund, and the ability to acquire such securities, as well as arbitrageurs' ability to create workable hedges; and
• A close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected.
While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rule 101 and 102 of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon that exception for the Shares.
Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any “distribution participant” and its “affiliated purchasers” from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase, any security which is the subject of a distribution until after the applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines “distribution” to mean any offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101 of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters, brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate or are participating in a distribution of securities. The Shares are in a continuous distribution and, as such, the restricted period in which distribution participants and their affiliated purchasers are prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce others to bid for or purchase extends indefinitely.
Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company that will continuously redeem at the NAV Creation Unit size aggregations of the Shares of the Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust an exemption under paragraph (d) of Rule 101 of Regulation M with respect to Shares of the Fund, thus permitting persons participating in a distribution of Shares of the Fund to bid for or purchase such Shares during their participation in such distribution.
Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security holders, or any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer or selling security holder.
Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the Trust is a registered open-end management investment company that will redeem at the NAV Creation Units of Shares of the Fund and that a close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV is expected, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust an exemption under paragraph (e) of Rule 102 of Regulation M with respect to Shares of the Fund, thus permitting the Fund to redeem Shares of the Fund during the continuous offering of such Shares.
Rule 10b-17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class of securities in accordance with Rule 10b-17(b). Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, and subject to the conditions below, we find that it is appropriate in the public interest, and consistent with the protection of investors, to grant the Trust a conditional exemption from Rule 10b-17 because market participants will receive timely notification of the existence and timing of a pending distribution, and thus the concerns that the Commission raised in adopting Rule 10b-17 will not be implicated.
This exemptive relief is subject to the following conditions:
• The Trust will comply with Rule 10b-17 except for Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b); and
• The Trust will provide the information required by Rule 10b-17(b)(1)(v)(a) and (b) to the Exchange as soon as practicable before trading begins on the ex-dividend date, but in no event later than the time when the Exchange last accepts information relating to distributions on the day before the ex-dividend date.
This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. This exemption is based on the facts presented and the representations made in the Letter. Any different facts or representations may require a different response. Persons relying upon this exemptive relief shall discontinue transactions involving the Shares of the Fund, pending presentation of the facts for the Commission's consideration, in the event that any material change occurs with respect to any of the facts or representations made by the Requestors and, as is the case with all preceding letters, particularly with respect to the close alignment between the market price of Shares and the Fund's NAV. In addition, persons relying on this exemptive relief are directed to the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act, particularly Sections 9(a) and 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on this exemptive relief.
This Order should not be considered a view with respect to any other question that the proposed transactions may raise, including, but not limited to the adequacy of the disclosure concerning, and the applicability of other federal or state laws to, the proposed transactions.
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 amend Commentary .01 of Rule 1014, Obligations and Restrictions Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders, to change quarterly trading requirements applicable to Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”), as described below.
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized; deletions are bracketed.
(a)-(g) No change.
.01 An ROT electing to engage in Exchange options transactions is designated as a specialist on the Exchange for all purposes under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations thereunder with respect to options transactions initiated and effected by him on the floor in his capacity as an ROT. For purposes of this commentary, the term “transactions initiated and effected on the floor” shall not include transactions initiated by an ROT off the floor, but which are considered “on-floor” pursuant to Commentaries .07 and .08 of Rule 1014. Similarly, an RSQT electing to engage in Exchange options transactions is designated as a specialist on the Exchange for all purposes under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations thereunder with respect to options transactions initiated and effected by him in his capacity as an ROT.
[An ROT (other than an RSQT or a Remote Specialist)]
In addition, in order for an ROT (other than an RSQT or a Remote Specialist) to receive specialist margin treatment for off-floor orders in any calendar quarter, the ROT must execute the greater of 1,000 contracts or 80% of his total contracts that quarter in person (not through the use of orders, except that non-streaming ROTs can use orders entered in person) and 75% of his total contracts that quarter in assigned options. Transactions executed in the trading crowd where the contra-side is an ROT are not included.
The off-floor orders for which an ROT receives specialist margin treatment shall be subject to the obligations of Rule 1014(a) and, in general, be effected for the purpose of hedging, reducing risk of, or rebalancing positions of the ROT. An ROT is responsible for evidencing compliance with these provisions. The Exchange may exempt one or more classes of options from this calculation.
.02-.19 No change.
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 add flexibility to one of the Exchange's quarterly trading requirements to encourage liquidity-providing activity by market makers on the Exchange's trading floor. Phlx imposed this trading requirement initially to require market makers to ensure available liquidity on the trading floor. Liquidity provided by market makers is a key ingredient to ensuring a competitive trading floor. Market maker liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities. The Exchange's proposal is intended to ensure that market makers on the trading floor are ready and able to participate to provide a reasonable pool of liquidity on the floor trading. The Exchange also notes that other options exchanges with physical trading floors do not have a minimum trading requirement similar to Phlx.
The general term “market makers” on the Exchange includes Specialists
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend a quarterly trading requirement set forth in Commentary .01.
This proposal seeks to amend this quarterly requirement of Commentary .01 in two ways: (1) By limiting the trading requirement to non-SQT ROTs; and (2) by adding a new test as an alternative. The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01 to require a non-SQT ROT (other than an RSQT or
With respect to limiting the requirement to non-SQT ROTs, the Exchange notes that today, SQTs and RSQTs are obligated to continuous quoting requirements when trading electronically in their assigned options series.
With respect to adding the alternative, similar to the requirement today, transactions executed in the trading crowd where the contra-side is an ROT would not be included.
By way of background, the Exchange adopted the 1000/300 Alternative, the existing requirement, in 2011.
The Exchange has observed that certain non-SQT ROTs, who trade larger sized orders and who only trade a handful of underlying stocks are making markets on a daily basis but are having less opportunity because larger orders are often placed into the Qualified Contingent Cross (QCC) mechanism.
The Exchange is now proposing to address this issue by modifying the 1000/300 Alternative trading requirement to include the New Alternative as an additional metric, one that could be satisfied by fewer transactions but more traded contracts, such that the overall trading requirement originally contemplated by the 1000/300 Alternative is not diluted. After discussing this issue with the larger non-SQT ROTs who are very active on a daily basis, the Exchange determined that 100 transactions per quarter was a reasonable number to measure whether an non-SQT ROT is providing liquidity to the market. The Exchange concluded that a reduced number of 100 transactions per quarter would permit non-SQT ROTs to make their trading decisions without undue influence of quoting [sic] obligations alone, and instead choose whether to participate in trades based on factors independent of the actual quoting [sic] obligation.
The Exchange believes that the value of a non-SQT ROT is not limited to only whether they actually execute transactions, but as important is that they are actively quoting markets and providing pricing information. Since 100 transactions is only 33% of the current requirement, the Exchange determined to increase the total executed contracts number by 900 percent to 10,000 contracts, to ensure that the Exchange did not diminish the trading requirement when viewed from an overall perspective. The Exchange believes this alternative requirement is a good measure that improves the analysis of whether the larger non-SQT ROT's are participating in an expected manner, and providing liquidity to the market.
The Exchange notes that in order to meet the floor trading requirements a non-SQT ROT may either continue to comply with the current requirement or may voluntarily comply with the New Alternative. The existing requirement is based on the ability to trade 1,000 contracts and 300 transactions on the Exchange each quarter, more contracts but of a smaller size. The New Alternative permits compliance with the quoting [sic] rules by transacting fewer transactions (100 transactions) but larger sized volume (10,000 contracts). The two options to comply with the floor trading rule do not vary in terms of benefits or obligations.
The Exchange believes the combined test of “10,000 contracts” and “100 transactions” would be a fair measure of liquidity as an alternative to complement the current requirement, and is a fair and balanced way to measure whether a non-SQT ROT is providing liquidity to the marketplace. This proposed new measure will be a fairer measure for market makers on the trading floor in that it considers another perspective of liquidity—specifically, the offering of deep liquid markets
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that removing the requirement that SQTs and RSQTs [sic] are required to meet the trading requirement is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade because these market participants are subject to continuous quoting requirements today.
The proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing a new alternative to an existing requirement that today non-SQT ROTs have difficulty meeting given the current trading environment, thus enabling them to continue making markets to the benefit of investors by requiring ample liquidity. Investors and the public interest are protected by the proposal in that it should help preserve the number of non-SQT ROTs making markets and providing liquidity to the benefit of users of the Exchange's market.
It is important to note that a non-SQT ROT cannot control the size and frequency of crowd trades, even less so crowd trades where the contra-side is not an ROT. The Exchange represents that the only other way to participate in trades other than through the use of orders is by quoting; while SQTs quote electronically by “streaming” quotations into the Exchange, non-SQT ROTs may only quote verbally in response to floor brokers representing orders in the trading crowd. The Exchange believes that it has become difficult for such ROTs to comply with the trading requirements. The Exchange believes that this new trading requirement should increase the likelihood that an ROT is actively providing liquidity on Phlx. The Exchange believes that the proposed new trading requirement should enhance the market making functions for non-SQT ROTs and serve to maintain a fair and orderly market thereby promoting the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange notes that non-SQT ROTs may meet the proposed requirement by entering limits orders, but the Exchange notes that the Exchange is not seeking to burden these market participants by limiting the type of qualifying transactions to meet the requirement. The Exchange recognizes that floor trading is a competitive space and that Phlx is the only floor trading venue requiring its market makers on the trading floor to transact a minimum amount of contracts. The Exchange is not proposing to remove the ability to enter limit orders to meet the New Alternative because it seeks to encourage market makers to transact business on Phlx.
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. With respect to intra-market competition, limiting the trading requirement to non-SQT ROTS, the Exchange does not believe this imposes an undue burden on competition because SQTs and RSQTs are subject to continuous quoting requirements today,
Further, with respect to inter-market competition, the Exchange also notes that other options exchanges with physical trading floors do not have a minimum trading requirement similar to Phlx. The New Alternative trading requirement would be available to non-SQT ROTs without distinction, as an alternative to the existing 1000/300 Alternative trading requirement. The Exchange's proposal to permit non-SQT ROTs to comply with the trading requirement in one of two ways provides these market participants a means to compete in a space which has witnessed lower trading volumes. Also, the Exchange does not seek to disadvantage these market participants who compete with other trading floors who do not have trading requirements, as noted above, and also who do not have the automated compliance checks.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to extend the date on which certain changes to the NYSE Arca Rule 5 and Rule 8 series are implemented. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On January 6, 2017, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change, as subsequently amended by Amendments No. 1 and 2 thereto (as amended, the “Proposed Rule Change”), to adopt certain changes to the NYSE Arca Rules 5 and 8 series to add additional continued listing standards for exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) as well as clarify the procedures that the Exchange will undertake when an ETF is noncompliant with applicable rules. Given the scope of the amendments specified in the Proposed Rule Change, the Exchange proposed that such amendments not be implemented until October 1, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the Commission granted accelerated approval of the Proposed Rule Change, including the October 1, 2017 implementation date.
Since the Proposed Rule Change was approved, the Exchange has engaged in extensive conversations with issuers of listed ETFs, industry advocacy groups and index providers to discuss the new rule requirements and offer guidance on rule interpretation and application. As a result of these conversations, ETF issuers have expressed concern about their ability to have in place systems and procedures to ensure compliance by the current October 1, 2017 implementation date. In particular, listed ETF issuers, and industry advocacy groups on their behalf, have explained that issuers will require time to design and test new compliance systems as well as engage in discussions with third-party providers to source and track new data elements required for rule compliance.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to extend the implementation date of the Proposed Rule Change to July 1, 2018 to provide listed ETF issuers with the time needed to develop and test their compliance procedures. In support of its proposal, the Exchange notes that the Proposed Rule Change imposes significant new compliance requirements on issuers that they have not been subject to previously. To meet these new compliance requirements, issuers must develop internal systems as well as coordinate with third-party service providers, such as index providers, to
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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, as amended. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate listed issuer ability to monitor and evidence compliance with approved continued listing rules by providing issuers with additional time to develop and test their internal systems and procedures prior to the implementation date.
The Exchange received a copy of a letter from the Investment Company Institute, on behalf of listed ETF issuers, to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 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 EDGX's trading hours for options on ETPs and aligning EDGX'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.
EDGX 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 EDGX'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.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has forwarded the attached Notifications of Proposed Export Licenses to the Congress on the dates indicated on the attachments.
As shown on each of the 51 letters.
Mr. Anthony M. Dearth Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2836; e-mail
Pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d), and in compliance with section 36(f), of the Arms Export Control Act. Section 36(f) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) mandates that notifications to the Congress pursuant to sections 36(c) and 36(d) must be published in the
Following are such notifications to the Congress:
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and components abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M4 carbines and accessories to the Government of Honduras.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom in support of the manufacture of Tactical Advanced Land Inertial Navigator 3000/5000 series Inertial Navigation Units.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of an amendment to a technical assistance agreement for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the continued export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services for the Organizational, Intermediate, and Depot Level Maintenance of T700-GE-701C/701D engines for end use by the United Arab Emirates Armed Forces.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of semi-automatic pistols, spare barrels, and spare parts to Tunisia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the Republic of Korea to support the integration of the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) and Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions (LJDAM) Weapon System with the Republic of Korea aircraft.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Spain to support the design and manufacture of sporting firearms and components in Spain for commercial resale in the United States and other countries.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Israel to support the Full Rate Production activities of the Arrow 3 Interceptor.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom to support the manufacture, integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of cockpit transparencies for the F-22 aircraft.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $25,000,000or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of Major Defense Equipment to Israel in support of base and organizational level maintenance for the operation and sustainment of the F-135 propulsion system for end-use by the Government of Israel.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearm parts abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of barrel blanks to Canada for commercial resale.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of machine guns, barrel assemblies, spare parts, and accessories to Tunisia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Arab Emirates to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M134 7.62mm machine guns, spare parts, and accessories to Indonesia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the transfer of defense articles, to include technical data and defense services to support the integration of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) onto Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) aircraft.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Saudi Arabia to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $14,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Saudi Arabia to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the FMU-152A/B Joint Programmable Bomb (JPB) Fuze System.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and Saudi Arabia to support the assembly, modification, testing, training, operation, maintenance, and integration of the Paveway II and III, Enhanced Paveway II and III, and Paveway IV Weapons Systems for the Royal Saudi Air Force.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the Arms Export Control
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the Republic of Korea for the manufacture, assembly, inspection, and testing of F404-GE-102 engines for the T-50, TA-50, and FA-50 aircraft series for end-use by various countries.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Germany to support the manufacture, integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the TYTON line of laser rangefinder targeting devices and component modules.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Canada and Saudi Arabia to support the design, development, modification, and integration of Enhanced Situational Awareness systems into armored vehicles.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of machine guns and barrels to Turkey.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services to perform depot level maintenance of engines installed on F-18 aircraft for end use by Kuwait and Spain.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, to include technical data, and defense services to Italy to support the manufacture, operation, test integration, evaluation, installation, assembly, and maintenance of the G-2000 Dynamically Tuned Gyroscope product family that incorporate or operate the gyroscope for end-use on the Joint Strike Fighter Turret Stabilization, ASPIDE missile, and ASTER missile programs.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom to support the manufacturing, assembly, inspection, and delivery of certain F135 engine Ice Protection Systems associated parts and components for end-use by the U.S. Government and U.S. Government authorized end-users.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of fully automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols, silencers, spare parts, and accessories to Indonesia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the sale of one modified G550 aircraft to the government of Israel.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Mexico to support the integration, installation, operation, training, testing, maintenance, and repair of the Star Safire 380 HD camera system.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the transfer of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Israel for the manufacture of F-15 aircraft structural components.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export carbines, spare parts, and accessories to Qatar.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M2A2 12.7mm and M60E 7.62mm machine guns, primary and spare barrels, and M60 weapons training, parts, and accessories to Tunisia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates to support the marketing, sale and on-going support of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Sections 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Kingdom for the manufacture of Joint Strike Fighter subassemblies, components, parts, and associated tooling of the aft fuselage and empennage.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, accessories, and after sales support abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M4 fully automatic carbines 5.56x45 NATO to the United Arab Emirates.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan to support the integration, installation, and maintenance of the F135 Propulsion System for the J-35.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of bolt action rifles of various calibers to Sweden.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of bolt action rifles and suppressors to the United Arab Emirates.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms ammunition abroad controlled under Category III of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of various calibers of firearms ammunition to Saudi Arabia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M400 semi-automatic rifles and P320 semi-automatic pistols and accessories to Jordan.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services for the sale of two modified G550 aircraft to the government of Poland.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to the United Arab Emirates to support the maintenance, testing, support, field engineering services, logistics management assistance, training, repair, and calibration for three (3) sets of AN/TPS-78 Radar Systems, two (2) sets of TPS-70 Radar Systems, a command, control, and communications system known as the Emirates Air Defense Ground Environment (EADGE), and a low altitude surveillance system known as the Emirates Low Altitude Surveillance System (ELASS).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of various rifles, pistols, barrels, flash hiders, and accessories to Canada.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of .50 caliber rifles, ammunition, barrels, accessories, and associated training to Mexico.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of M400 5.56 rifles and associated parts and components to Jordan.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of 5.56mm semi-automatic rifles, 9mm caliber rifles, 9mm pistols, silencers, and accessories to Indonesia.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of proposed license amendment for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data and defense services to Japan to support the operation, installation, maintenance, and repair of the Mk15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS).
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Japan for the sale and support of AAV7A1 RAM/RS Amphibious Assault Vehicles.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of $50,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to India to support the integration, assembly, and maintenance of M777A2 155mm Lightweight Howitzers in support of an existing Foreign Military Sales Contract.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of semi-automatic 9mm pistols with extra magazines to Thailand.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of semi-automatic 9mm pistols with extra magazines and ammunition to Thailand.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of firearms, parts, and accessories abroad controlled under Category I of the United States Munitions List in the amount of $1,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of 5.56mm and 7.62mm carbines, associated training and parts, and accessories to Sweden.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license amendment for the manufacture of significant military equipment abroad and the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services in the amount of 100,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Canada to support the manufacture of Precision Optical Subsystems, Optomechanical Major Assemblies, and Optical Components for the AIM-9X Sidewinder Missile.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, I am transmitting certification of a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense in the amount of $14,000,000 or more.
The transaction contained in the attached certification involves the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Taiwan for the MK 41 Vertical Launching System.
The United States government is prepared to license the export of these items having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
More detailed information is contained in the formal certification which, though unclassified, contains business information submitted to the Department of State by the applicant, publication of which could cause competitive harm to the United States firm concerned.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Teotihuacan: City of Water, City of Fire,” 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 Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, de Young Museum, San Francisco, California, from on or about September 30, 2017, until on or about February 11, 2018, at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, from on or about March 25, 2018, until on or about July 15, 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,
The Department of State announces the renewal of the Charter of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB).
The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent insight, advice, and innovation on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, and international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The ISAB will remain in existence for two years after the filing date of the Charter unless terminated.
For more information, please contact Christopher M. Herrick, Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has determined that Togo has adopted an effective visa system and related procedures to prevent the unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel articles and the use of counterfeit documents in connection with the shipment of such articles, and has implemented and follows, or is making substantial progress towards implementing and following, the custom procedures required by the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Therefore, imports of eligible products from Togo qualify for the textile and apparel benefits provided under the AGOA.
This notice is applicable on August 22, 2017.
Constance Hamilton, Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for African Affairs, (202) 395-9514 or
The AGOA (Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-200, as amended) provides preferential tariff treatment for imports of certain textile and apparel products of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. The textile and apparel trade benefits under AGOA are available to imports of eligible products from countries that the President designates as “beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries,” provided that these countries: (1) Have adopted an effective visa system and related procedures to prevent the unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel articles and the use of counterfeit documents in connection with shipment of such articles; and (2) have implemented and follow, or are making substantial progress towards implementing and following, certain customs procedures that assist the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in verifying the origin of the products. In
In Proclamation 7350 of October 2, 2000, the President authorized the United States Trade Representative to perform the function of determining whether eligible sub-Saharan countries have met the two requirements described above. The President directed the United States Trade Representative to announce any such determinations in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in the United States Trade Representative by Proclamation 7350, U.S. note 7(a) to subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS, and U.S. notes 1 and 2(d) to subchapter XIX of the HTS, are modified by inserting “Togo” in alphabetical sequence in the list of countries. The foregoing modifications to the HTS are effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the effective date of this notice. Imports claiming preferential tariff treatment under the AGOA for entries of textile and apparel articles should ensure that those entries meet the applicable visa requirements.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0662 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Clarence Garden (202) 267-7489, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0700 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brittany Newton (202) 267-6691, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for Public Comment.
The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain airport properties 15.5 acres at the Melbourne International Airport, Melbourne, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the City of Melbourne, dated April 20, 1948. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Melbourne International Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.
Comments are due on or before
Documents are available for review at the Melbourne International Airport, One Air Terminal Parkway, Suite 220, Melbourne, FL 32901 and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Mark Busalacchi, Director of Business Development, Melbourne International Airport, One Air Terminal Parkway, Suite 220, Melbourne, FL 32901.
Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
The release of property will allow the City of Melbourne to dispose of the property for commercial use. The City of Melbourne requests the release of a 15.5 acre tract located in a commercial district along Apollo Boulevard in Melbourne, Florida. The parcel is currently designated commercial property. The property will be released of its federal obligations given the land is no longer required by The City of Melbourne. The Fair Market Value (FMV) of this parcel has been determined to be $2,125,000.00.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the “waiver” or “modification” of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8866 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 121 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20721; FMCSA-2009-0174; FMCSA-2013-0020; FMCSA-2015-0064; FMCSA-2015-0065; FMCSA-2015-0066 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The 121 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 121 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the diabetes requirement (70 FR 23898; 70 FR 52465; 74 FR 37288; 74 FR 48641; 78 FR 38439; 78 FR 60014; 80 FR 47024; 80 FR 48396; 80 FR 49304; 80 FR 77079; 80 FR 79399; 80 FR 79411). They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
As of September 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (70 FR 23898; 70 FR 52465): Lee R. Kumm (WI), Mitchell L. Pullen (NE), Steven R. Zoller (MN).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2005-20721. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 2, 2017, and will expire on September 2, 2019.
As of September 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 28 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 47024; 80 FR 79411):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0064. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 9, 2017, and will expire on September 9, 2019.
As of September 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 29 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 48396; 80 FR 77079):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0065. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 12, 2017, and will expire on September 12, 2019.
As of September 17, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 40 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 49304; 80 FR 79399):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0066. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 17, 2017, and will expire on September 17, 2019.
As of September 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 38439; 78 FR 60014):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0020. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 18, 2017, and will expire on September 18, 2019.
As of September 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 15 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 37288; 74 FR 48641):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0174. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 22, 2017, and will expire on September 22, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 121 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for five individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The renewed exemptions were applicable on July 12, 2017. The renewed exemptions will expire on July 12, 2019. Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355; FMCSA-2014-0381; FMCSA-2014-0382 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391—MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: § 391.41(b)(8), paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.]
The five individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the five applicants has satisfied the conditions for obtaining an exemption from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorder requirements and were published in the
The five drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. FMCSA has concluded that renewing the exemptions for each of these applicants is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to renew each exemption for a two-year period for the following applicants:
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the five exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on July 13, 2017, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension and expansion of an existing waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 213. FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2001-10654.
AAR, on behalf of its member railroads, received permission from FRA to operate trains at Class 5 speeds over “heavy-point” frogs (HPF) with guard check gages conforming to the standards for Class 4 track frogs on April 22, 2003. AAR requested and was granted two extensions, dated February 25, 2008 and January 18, 2013. The current waiver will expire on January 18, 2018.
In the current petition, AAR requests an extension of the existing relief from 49 CFR 213.143—
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 6, 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
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice; request for expressions of interest to participate.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the establishment of the Pilot Program for Nonprofit Cooperative Procurements (Pilot Program) and solicits expressions of interest from eligible nonprofit entities to participate. The Pilot Program is aimed at increasing innovation, promoting efficiency, and demonstrating the effectiveness of cooperative procurement contracts for rolling stock and related equipment administered by eligible nonprofit entities.
Expressions of interest to become one of the selected nonprofit entities in the Pilot Program for Nonprofit Cooperative Procurements must be received by October 23, 2017.
Expressions of interest may be submitted via U.S. mail, electronic mail, or fax. Mail submissions must be addressed to the Office of Acquisition Management, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room E42-332, Washington, DC 20590. Email submissions must be sent to
For program matters, James Harper, FTA Office of Acquisition Management, telephone (202) 366-1127 or email
Section 3019 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94, permits FTA grantees to purchase rolling stock and related equipment from cooperative procurement contracts entered into by either a State government or an eligible nonprofit entity and 1 or more vendors. Section 3019 was designed to address the high purchasing costs attributable to the relatively small size of the procurements for rolling stock and related equipment, particularly for small and rural public transportation providers. Many States currently have authority to enter into cooperative purchasing contracts, also known as “state schedules.” However, such authority was not previously extended to nonprofit entities.
The statute creates a pilot program to demonstrate the effectiveness of cooperative procurement contracts administered by nonprofit entities. These contracts are intended to be separate from State cooperative purchasing contracts and provide another opportunity for public transportation systems of all sizes to enhance their purchasing options.
Section 3019(b)(3) establishes a Pilot Program to demonstrate the effectiveness of cooperative procurement contracts administered by eligible nonprofit entities. The objective of this innovative procurement approach is to enhance the purchasing options for all public transportation systems. FTA plans to assess the benefits and effectiveness of the Pilot Program to assist grantees in developing more efficient and innovative approaches to acquiring rolling stock and related equipment.
A cooperative procurement contract in the Pilot Program means a contract between an eligible nonprofit entity and 1 or more vendors under which the vendors agree to provide an option to purchase rolling stock and related equipment to multiple grantee participants. Where permitted by State
Nonprofit entities selected for the Pilot Program may enter into a cooperative procurement contract for an initial term of not more than 2 years. The contract may include not more than 3 optional extensions for terms of not more than 1 year each. Thus, the contract may be in effect for a total period of not more than 5 years, including each extension.
A lead nonprofit entity selected for the Pilot Program shall develop the terms of the contract and the contract must be solicited and awarded in accordance with all applicable FTA and Federal standards, requirements, and policies. The applicable FTA and Federal procurement standards, requirements, and policies, including FTA's Buy America requirements, are set forth in 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, FTA's implementing regulations, FTA's Master Agreement, 2 CFR parts 200 and 1201, and FTA Circular 4220.1F.
Section 3019 specifies that FTA must select no fewer than 3 eligible nonprofit entities for the Pilot Program. Per the FAST Act, an eligible nonprofit entity for the Pilot Program may be either a nonprofit cooperative purchasing organization that is not an FTA grantee or subgrantee, or a consortium of eligible nonprofit cooperative purchasing organizations. A local government or a tribal government is not an eligible nonprofit entity under the Pilot Program.
Successful entities are expected to develop and issue a solicitation for a cooperative procurement contract within 60 days of their selection into the Pilot Program. The solicitation of a contract must be conducted through a competitive process that will comply with FTA's full and open competition standard and Federal and FTA procurement requirements and policies. To promote the fullest opportunity for grantees to participate in the Pilot Program, FTA anticipates that cooperative procurement contracts will be open and available to all FTA grantees. To address special circumstances, however, FTA may consider a cooperative procurement contract in the Pilot Program which may be limited only to recipients in one or more of FTA's grant programs.
A lead nonprofit entity in the Pilot Program may charge participants in the contract for the cost of administering, planning, and providing technical assistance for the contract in an amount that is not more than 1 percent of the total value of the participant's order placed on the contract. The 1 percent charge may either be incorporated into the price of the rolling stock and related equipment offered under the cooperative procurement program or directly charge the grantee participants for the costs, but not both. If the nonprofit directly charges the grantee participants for the costs, it cannot charge any individual grantee more than 1 percent of the total value of the grantee's order.
Interested nonprofit entities for the Pilot Program must submit the required information by U.S. mail, email or facsimile by October 23, 2017, as specified in the
Interested nonprofit entities must provide the following information to FTA in narrative format or as otherwise instructed:
a. A description of the procurement experience held by the personnel in the applicant's organization, including sufficient information to demonstrate the ability to successfully carry out and administer a cooperative procurement contract or contracts;
b. A description of the familiarity of the applicant's personnel with Federal and FTA procurement standards, requirements, and policies;
c. A description to show how the applicant's program will be administered. This description should include, but not be limited to, the process by which vendors will be selected for the cooperative procurement contract, the process by which grantee participants will be registered in the program and the process for grantee participants to place orders on a cooperative procurement contract.
d. The articles of incorporation of the applicant to demonstrate that the purpose of the nonprofit organization is consistent with the purpose of the Pilot Program;
e. Evidence that the applicant possesses adequate financial capacity to successfully administer a cooperative procurement contract or contracts;
f. Documentation that the applicant is a nonprofit entity in good standing in the State of incorporation; and,
g. Certification that the applicant is not indebted to a Federal or State taxing authority.
FTA will evaluate the submissions to determine which applicants demonstrate they have the capability to effectively enter into and administer a cooperative procurement contract. FTA will select no fewer than three geographically diverse applicants from the submitted expressions of interest to be part of the Pilot Program, except that if there are less than three applicants able to meet the requirements of the Pilot Program, FTA may solicit additional interest in the future. FTA will evaluate the experience, legal, technical, and financial capacity of interested nonprofit entities to implement the Pilot Program successfully.
After an announcement by the FTA Administrator or designee of the final selection(s) posted on the FTA Web site, FTA may publish final selections for the Pilot Program in the
All information submitted as part of or in support of the Pilot Program application shall be publicly available data or data that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and standards, to the extent possible. If the submission includes information the applicant considers to be a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission “Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI);” (2) mark each affected page “CBI;” and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions. FTA protects such information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law. If FTA receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, FTA will follow the procedures described in the U.S. DOT FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Should FTA receive an order from a court of competent jurisdiction ordering the
The Pilot Program is not funded with Federal funds; selected nonprofit entities may charge the grantee participants in the cooperative procurement contract for the cost of administering, planning, and providing technical assistance for the contract in an amount that is not more than 1 percent of the contract price. The selected nonprofit entity may incorporate the cost into the price of the contract or directly charge the grantee participants for the cost, but not both.
To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the utility and effectiveness of the Pilot Program, FTA, or its designated independent evaluator, will require access to project data. Selected nonprofit entities should be prepared to collect and maintain data related to participating vendors, participating grantees, and the quantity and price of rolling stock and related equipment procured by grantees through the cooperative procurement.
After selection of eligible nonprofit entities for the Pilot Program, the Pilot Program will expire six years from the publication of this notice in the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces a final environmental action taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a project in Hudson County, New Jersey. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decision by FTA on the subject project and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge this final environmental action.
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 19, 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 action by issuing a certain approval for the public transportation project listed below. The action on the project, as well as the laws under which such action was taken, is described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the project. 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 project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such action was 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
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice of final priorities.
In June 2017, the Commission published a notice of proposed policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2018.
Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500,
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and
As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze sentencing issues, including operation of the federal sentencing guidelines, the Commission has identified its policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2018. Other factors, such as legislation requiring Commission action, may affect the Commission's ability to complete work on any or all identified priorities by May 1, 2018. Accordingly, the Commission may continue work on any or all identified priorities after that date or may decide not to pursue one or more identified priorities.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(g), the Commission intends to consider the issue of reducing costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons, to the extent it is relevant to any identified priority.
The Commission has identified the following priorities:
(1) Continuation of its multiyear examination of the structure of the guidelines post-
(2) Continuation of its multiyear study of offenses involving synthetic cathinones (such as methylone, MDPV, and mephedrone) and synthetic cannabinoids (such as JWH-018 and AM-2201), as well as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), fentanyl, and fentanyl analogues, and consideration of appropriate guideline amendments, including simplifying the determination of the most closely related substance under Application Note 6 of the Commentary to § 2D1.1.
(3) Continuation of its work with Congress and others to implement the recommendations of the Commission's 2016 report to Congress,
(4) Continuation of its work with Congress and others to implement the recommendations of the Commission's 2011 report to Congress,
(5) Continuation of its comprehensive, multiyear study of recidivism, including the circumstances that correlate with increased or reduced recidivism; consideration of developing recommendations to reduce incarceration costs and prison overcapacity, and to promote effective reentry programs; and consideration of appropriate guideline amendments, including revising Chapter Four and Chapter Five (A) to lower guideline ranges for “first offenders” and (B) to increase the availability of alternatives to incarceration for such offenders at the lower levels of the Sentencing Table.
(6) Implementation of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, and other legislation warranting Commission action.
(7) Continuation of its study of the May 2016 Report of the Commission's Tribal Issues Advisory Group and consideration of appropriate guideline amendments, including (A) revising how tribal court convictions are addressed in Chapter Four and (B) providing a definition of “court protection order” that would apply throughout the guidelines.
(8) Continuation of its examination of Chapter Four, Part A (Criminal History) and consideration of amendments to revise how the guidelines (A) treat convictions for offenses committed prior to age eighteen; (B) treat revocations under § 4A1.2(k) when the original sentence would not otherwise receive criminal history points because it is outside the time periods in § 4A1.2(d)(2) and (e); and (C) account in § 4A1.3 for instances in which the time actually served was substantially less than the length of the sentence imposed for a conviction counted in the criminal history score.
(9) Continuation of its study of alternatives to incarceration, preparation of a publication on the development of alternative-to-incarceration programs in federal district courts, and consideration of appropriate guideline amendments, including consolidating Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table in Chapter 5, Part A.
(10) Resolution of circuit conflicts as warranted, pursuant to the Commission's authority under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) and
(11) Consideration of other miscellaneous guideline application issues, including whether a defendant's denial of relevant conduct should be considered in determining whether the defendant has accepted responsibility for purposes of § 3E1.1.
28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.2.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will be held September 13-15, 2017. The meeting sessions will take place at the Harbor Homes, Inc. at 77 Northeastern Blvd., Nashua, NH 03062. Sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting tours of VA facilities, participating in off-site events, and participating in workgroup sessions. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of VA in assisting Veterans at-risk and experiencing homelessness. The Committee shall assemble and review information related to the needs of homeless Veterans and provide advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to that subset of the Veteran population. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On Wednesday, September 13, the Committee will convene an open session at the Harbor Homes, Inc., 77 Northeastern Blvd., Nashua, NH 03062, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The agenda will include briefings from officials at VA and other agencies regarding services for homeless Veterans. From
The meeting sessions on Thursday, September 14 and Friday, September 15 are open to the public. On both days, the meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. On September 14, the meeting will end at 5:00 p.m.; and on September 15, the meeting will adjourn at 12:00 p.m. The agenda include briefings from officials at VA and other agencies. The Committee will also receive a briefing on the annual report that was developed after the last meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans and will then discuss topics for its upcoming annual report and recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments on issues affecting homeless Veterans for review by the Committee to Mr. Anthony Love, Designated Federal Officer, VHA Homeless Programs Office (10NC1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 90 K. Street NE., Washington, DC, or via email at
Members of the public who wish to attend should contact Charles Selby and/or Alexandra Logsdon of the Veterans Health Administration, Homeless Programs Office no later than August 30, 2017, at
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 461-6345.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
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 |