| Page Range | 41157-41320 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 41256 - Former Douglas Battery Site, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina; Notice of Settlement | |
| 82 FR 41319 - Military Service by Transgender Individuals | |
| 82 FR 41317 - Women's Equality Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 41296 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 41194 - Negotiated Rulemaking Committees; Negotiator Nominations and Schedule of Committee Meetings-Borrower Defenses, Financial Responsibility, and Gainful Employment | |
| 82 FR 41172 - Temporary Modification of Category XI of the United States Munitions List | |
| 82 FR 41174 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Croix River, Stillwater, MN | |
| 82 FR 41178 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 41184 - Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Operator Certification Extension | |
| 82 FR 41208 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 39-Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas; Authorization of Production Activity, Valeo North America, Inc., d/b/a Valeo Compressor North America (Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioner Compressors), Dallas, Texas | |
| 82 FR 41207 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 43-Battle Creek, Michigan; Authorization of Production Activity, Pfizer, Inc., (Pharmaceutical Products), Kalamazoo, Michigan | |
| 82 FR 41208 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26-Atlanta, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Nisshinbo Automotive Manufacturing, Inc. (Automotive Brake Linings, Pads, and Disc Pads Assembly and Production); Covington, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 41209 - Approval of Subzone Status; MTD Consumer Group Inc., Martin, Tennessee | |
| 82 FR 41209 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 80-San Antonio, Texas; Authorization of Production Activity; DPT Laboratories, Ltd. (Pharmaceutical Products); San Antonio, Texas | |
| 82 FR 41208 - Approval of Expanded Subzone Status, 5.11, Inc.; Modesto, Lathrop and Manteca, California | |
| 82 FR 41291 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Escape and Evacuation Plans | |
| 82 FR 41209 - Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty | |
| 82 FR 41174 - Safety Zone; Wando River, Charleston, SC | |
| 82 FR 41210 - Ripe Olives From Spain: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 82 FR 41297 - Preparation of Petitions for Rulemaking and Preparation and Submission of Proposals for Regulatory Guidance Documents | |
| 82 FR 41292 - Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition | |
| 82 FR 41294 - Voluntary Protection Programs Information; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 82 FR 41276 - CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment | |
| 82 FR 41256 - Methylene Chloride in Furniture Refinishing; Workshop | |
| 82 FR 41197 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure Requirement for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 41205 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Gray Triggerfish Management Measures; Amendment 46 | |
| 82 FR 41258 - Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity | |
| 82 FR 41214 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental; Assessment for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric, Administration National Data Buoy Center | |
| 82 FR 41177 - Eagle Permits; Revisions to Regulations for Eagle Incidental Take and Take of Eagle Nests; Correction | |
| 82 FR 41259 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 41280 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 41269 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41283 - Notice of Application for Extension of Public Land Order No. 7296, and Opportunity for Public Meeting, Sacramento Peak Observatory; New Mexico | |
| 82 FR 41179 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Small Electric Motors and Electric Motors | |
| 82 FR 41267 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 41173 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, IL | |
| 82 FR 41265 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 41263 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 41259 - Request for Information Relating to Production of Rates | |
| 82 FR 41157 - Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturer Assistance Program | |
| 82 FR 41303 - Public Listening Session Regarding CSX Transportation, Inc.'s Rail Service Issues; Joint Petition of Foresight Coal Sales, LLC, Sugar Camp Energy, LLC, Williamson Energy, LLC, and Consolidation Coal Company To Address the Adequacy of CSX Transportation's Coal Transportation Service Originating in the Illinois Basin and Northern Appalachia | |
| 82 FR 41304 - Reduction of Remote Communications Outlets Used by Flight Service Stations in the Conterminous United States | |
| 82 FR 41303 - Determination Pursuant to Section 7041(a)(3)(B) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016 | |
| 82 FR 41286 - Central Valley Project Improvement Act Water Management Plans | |
| 82 FR 41283 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Idaho | |
| 82 FR 41179 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 41288 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Request for Examination and/or Treatment | |
| 82 FR 41163 - Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics | |
| 82 FR 41270 - Product-Specific Guidance for Digoxin; Draft Revised Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 41303 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Renoir and Friends: Luncheon of the Boating Party” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 41300 - Disaster Declaration #15249 and #15250; WISCONSIN Disaster Number WI-00060 Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of WISCONSIN | |
| 82 FR 41301 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Tennessee | |
| 82 FR 41302 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 41274 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; KENGREAL | |
| 82 FR 41271 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; XTORO | |
| 82 FR 41273 - Determination That CENESTIN (Estrogens, Conjugated Synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 Milligrams, 0.45 Milligrams, 0.625 Milligrams, 0.9 Milligrams, and 1.25 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
| 82 FR 41273 - Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of an Abbreviated New Drug Application for PROPRANOLOL HYDROCHLORIDE | |
| 82 FR 41301 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Louisiana | |
| 82 FR 41300 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Oklahoma | |
| 82 FR 41213 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region IFQ Programs | |
| 82 FR 41214 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41312 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License | |
| 82 FR 41255 - Great River Energy; Notice of Filing | |
| 82 FR 41256 - Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 41290 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Rock Burst Control Plan, (Pertains to Underground Metal/Nonmetal Mines) | |
| 82 FR 41306 - Notice To Extend the Public Comment Period for the Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Model Year 2022-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards | |
| 82 FR 41308 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple TTB Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 41310 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 41310 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Capital Magnet Fund Forms | |
| 82 FR 41282 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Ferrous Metals Surveys | |
| 82 FR 41289 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Nondiscrimination Compliance Information Reporting | |
| 82 FR 41288 - Paper Clips From China | |
| 82 FR 41211 - Request for Information on the Development of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science 2.0 | |
| 82 FR 41210 - Federated Cloud Public Working Group | |
| 82 FR 41281 - Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 82 FR 41298 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Chapter XV, Section 2 Entitled “NASDAQ Options Market-Fees and Rebates” | |
| 82 FR 41300 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Listed Company Manual To Adopt Initial and Continued Listing Standards for Subscription Receipts | |
| 82 FR 41215 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility Project | |
| 82 FR 41229 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project | |
| 82 FR 41284 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tonto National Forest, Phoenix, AZ | |
| 82 FR 41285 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN | |
| 82 FR 41279 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 41277 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 41278 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 41277 - National Institutes of Health | |
| 82 FR 41279 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 41277 - National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 41262 - Proposed Amendment to Initial (2015) Funded Priorities List | |
| 82 FR 41307 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 41307 - Proposed Collection: Comment Request for Forms 945, 945-A, 945-X and TD 8672 | |
| 82 FR 41279 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 41207 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41182 - Proposed Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Western United States | |
| 82 FR 41255 - Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 41291 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Department of Labor Events Registration Platform | |
| 82 FR 41268 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 41287 - Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Packaging and Manuals Therefor; Certain Personal Transporters and Components Thereof; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 41160 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 41158 - Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) Annual Threshold Adjustments (Credit Cards, HOEPA, and ATR/QM) |
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Loan Programs Office, Department of Energy.
Interpretive rule.
The Department of Energy (“DOE”) is adopting an interpretive rule to clarify its interpretation of Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, as amended (“EISA”) and its implementing regulations for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program (the “ATVM Loan Program”) authorized by Section 136. Section 136(f), which establishes requirements for the administrative costs associated with loans under the ATVM Loan Program, was implemented by DOE pursuant to a 2008 interim final rule governing the operation of the ATVM Program. The implementing regulation in part provided that the borrower would be required to pay at the time of the closing of the loan, an “Administrative Fee” equal to 10 basis points of the principal amount of the loan. DOE is adopting this interpretive rule to explain its view that the administrative costs imposed by Congress under Section 136(f) is separate from the cost of the outside advisors engaged by DOE in connection with the review and processing of their respective loan applications, negotiation of conditional commitments, and closing of loans.
This interpretive rule is effective on August 30, 2017.
Herbert A. Glaser, Chief Counsel, Loan Programs Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, email:
Section 136 of EISA authorizes the Secretary of Energy (the “Secretary”) to issue grants and direct loans to applicants for the costs of reequipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce qualified advanced technology vehicles, or qualifying components. Section 136 also authorizes the Secretary to issue grants and direct loans for the costs of engineering integration performed in the United States of qualifying advanced technology vehicles and qualifying components. DOE promulgated regulations implementing Section 136 at 10 CFR part 611, 73 FR 66721 (November 12, 2008). The regulations included implementation of Section 136(f), “Fees,” which specifies that administrative costs shall be no more than $100,000 or 10 basis points of the loan. This statutory requirement is implemented at 10 CFR 611.107(e), which states that “[t]he Borrower will be required to pay at the time of the closing of the loan a fee equal to 10 basis points of the principal amount of the loan.” This payment is referred to as the “Administrative Fee.”
Although the Administrative Fee has been the sole fee imposed by DOE under the ATVM Loan Program to date, DOE does not interpret Section 136(f) as restricting its ability to assess other fees and charges on borrowers or other applicants, as defined in the implementing regulation at 10 CFR 611.2. Moreover, DOE does not interpret Section136(f) as limiting the Secretary's discretion to impose on borrowers or other applicants the cost of outside advisors engaged by DOE in connection with the processing and review of their respective loan applications or the negotiation and closing of their respective loan commitments and closings (collectively, “Transaction Advisory Costs”). In the 2008 rulemaking, DOE discussed its interpretation of Section 136(f), explaining that DOE interprets the statute as authorizing DOE to charge borrowers an administrative fee and as providing DOE with the flexibility to choose either monetary option set forth in the statute. DOE decided in the 2008 rulemaking that administrative costs imposed on each borrower will be 10 basis points of the loan, to be paid by the borrower on the closing date of the loan. DOE based its decision on the need for fairness among borrowers and the belief that administrative costs for a loan would be in excess of 10 basis points, and by selecting 10 basis points as the fee for all loans, DOE ensured that borrowers of smaller loans would pay smaller Administrative Fees. Nothing in the rulemaking sought to define “administrative costs,” nor did it suggest that Section 136(f) limited DOE's authority to recover costs not considered “administrative costs.” In this regard, the preamble to the 2008 interim final rule refers to a “fee”, but does not suggest that the fee is exclusive. Moreover, both Section 136(f) and the implementing regulations are silent as to the allocation, between DOE and applicants, of Transaction Advisory Costs or other costs that fall outside of the scope of administrative costs.
Generally, the costs incurred by DOE to date to carry out the ATVM Loan Program can be divided into two categories: Those costs attributable generally to the overall administration of the ATVM Program, including payroll and other overhead costs of the Loan Programs Office ATVM Division, which are incurred irrespective of the volume or complexity of loan applications (“Category I Costs”), and those costs attributable directly to the review, processing, closing and management of specific loan transactions, including Transaction Advisory Costs (“Category II Costs”). Transaction Advisory Costs and other Category II Costs vary significantly in relation to the maturity and organization of the applicant and the complexity of the proposed project, among other factors.
In this rulemaking, DOE interprets “administrative costs” as used in Section 136(f) not to include Category II Costs, including Transactional Advisory Costs. DOE interprets Section 136(f) to instead establish a limit on the Category I Costs of the ATVM Loan Program that can be recovered through the imposition of the Administrative Fee. Allocating to the applicant the responsibility for Transaction Advisory Costs associated with the applicant's transaction is consistent with the prevailing practices of similar federal financing programs and commercial lenders in similar transactions. Accordingly, DOE does not interpret either Section 136(f) or the
Based on its interpretation of the statute as explained in this rule, applicants for ATVM loans can bear all Transaction Advisory Costs associated with their respective applications. Applicants would pay Transaction Advisory Costs pursuant to direct agreements executed by and between the applicant and each relevant outside transaction advisor, in a form acceptable to DOE and each such transaction advisor, no later than the date determined by DOE in its discretion with respect to such pending application.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this interpretive rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Loan programs—energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule; official interpretation.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing this final rule amending the official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Bureau is required to calculate annually the dollar amounts for several provisions in Regulation Z; this final rule revises, as applicable, the dollar amounts for provisions implementing TILA and amendments to TILA, including under the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Bureau is adjusting these amounts, where appropriate, based on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in effect on June 1, 2017.
This final rule is effective January 1, 2018.
Jaclyn Maier, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552 at (202) 435-7700.
The Bureau is amending the official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to update the dollar amounts of various thresholds that are adjusted annually based on the annual percentage change in the CPI as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Specifically, for open-end consumer credit plans under TILA, the threshold that triggers requirements to disclose minimum interest charges will remain unchanged at $1.00 in 2018. For open-end consumer credit plans under the CARD Act amendments to TILA, the adjusted dollar amount for the safe harbor for a first violation penalty fee will remain unchanged at $27 in 2018 and the adjusted dollar amount for the safe harbor for a subsequent violation penalty fee will remain unchanged at $38 in 2018. For HOEPA loans, the adjusted total loan amount threshold for high-cost mortgages in 2018 will be $21,032. The adjusted points and fees dollar trigger for high-cost mortgages in 2018 will be $1,052. For the general rule to determine consumers' ability to repay mortgage loans, the maximum thresholds for total points and fees for qualified mortgages in 2018 will be 3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $105,158; $3,155 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $63,095 but less than $105,158; 5 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $21,032 but less than $63,095; $1,052 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $13,145 but less than $21,032; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount less than $13,145.
Sections 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) of the Bureau's Regulation Z implement sections 127(a)(3) and 127(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of TILA. Sections 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) require the disclosure of any minimum interest charge exceeding $1.00 that could be imposed during a billing cycle and provide that, for open-end consumer credit plans, the minimum interest charge thresholds will be re-calculated annually using the CPI that was in effect on the preceding June 1; the Bureau uses the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for this adjustment. When the cumulative change in the adjusted minimum value derived from applying the annual CPI-W level to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) has risen by a whole dollar, the minimum interest charge amounts set forth in the regulation will be increased by $1.00. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the month. This adjustment analysis is based on the CPI-W index in effect on June 1, 2017, which was reported by BLS on May 12, 2017, and reflects the percentage change from April 2016 to April 2017. The CPI-W is a subset of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) index and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. The adjustment analysis accounts for a 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2016 to April 2017. This increase in the CPI-W when applied to the current amounts in §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) did not trigger an increase in the minimum interest charge threshold of at least $1.00, and the Bureau is therefore not amending §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3).
Section 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Bureau's Regulation Z implements section 149(e) of TILA, established by the CARD Act.
Section 1026.32(a)(1)(ii) of the Bureau's Regulation Z implements section 1431 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Under § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii)(B) the HOEPA points and fees dollar trigger is $1,000. Section 1026.32(a)(1)(ii)(B) provides that this threshold amount will be recalculated annually using the CPI index in effect on June 1; the Bureau uses the CPI-U for this adjustment. The 2018 adjustment is based on the CPI-U index in effect on June 1, which was reported by BLS on May 12, 2017, and reflects the percentage change from April 2016 to April 2017. The adjustment to the $1,000 figure being adopted here reflects a 2.2 percent increase in the CPI-U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.
The Bureau's Regulation Z implements sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer's ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling, and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for qualified mortgages. Under § 1026.43(e)(3)(i), a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage if the transaction's points and fees exceed: 3 Percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount greater than or equal to $100,000; $3,000 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $60,000 but less than $100,000; 5 percent of the total loan amount for loans greater than or equal to $20,000 but less than $60,000; $1,000 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,500 but less than $20,000; or 8 percent of the total loan amount for loans less than $12,500. Section 1026.43(e)(3)(ii) provides that the limits and loan amounts in § 1026.43(e)(3)(i) are recalculated annually for inflation using the CPI-U index in effect on June 1. The CPI-U is based on all urban consumers and represents approximately 88 percent of the U.S. population. The BLS publishes consumer-based indices monthly but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of each month. The 2018 adjustment is based on the CPI-U index in effect on June 1, which was reported by BLS on May 12, 2017, and reflects the percentage change from April 2016 to April 2017. The adjustment to the 2017 figures being adopted here reflects a 2.2 percent increase in the CPI-U index for this period and is rounded to whole dollars for ease of compliance.
The minimum interest charge amounts for §§ 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) and 1026.60(b)(3) will remain unchanged at $1.00 for the year 2018. Accordingly, the Bureau is not amending these sections of Regulation Z.
The safe harbor penalty fee amounts remain unchanged at $27 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) (first violation safe harbor penalty fee) and $38 for § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B) (subsequent violation safe harbor penalty fee) for the year 2018. Accordingly, the Bureau is not amending these sections of Regulation Z. The Bureau is amending comment 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.i to preserve a list of the historical thresholds for this provision.
Effective January 1, 2018, for purposes of determining under § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii) the points and fees coverage test under HOEPA to which a transaction is subject, the total loan amount threshold is $21,032, and the adjusted points and fees dollar trigger under § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii)(B) is $1,052. When the total loan amount for a transaction is $21,032 or more, and the points and fees amount exceeds 5 percent of the total loan amount, the transaction is a high-cost mortgage. When the total loan amount for a transaction is less than $21,032, and the points and fees amount exceeds the lesser of the adjusted points and fees dollar trigger of $1,052 or 8 percent of the total loan amount, the transaction is a high-cost mortgage. The Bureau is amending comments 32(a)(1)(ii)-1 and -3, which list the adjustments for each year, to reflect for 2018 the new loan amount dollar threshold and the new points and fees dollar trigger, respectively.
Effective January 1, 2018, for purposes of determining whether a covered transaction is a qualified mortgage under § 1026.43(e), a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage if, pursuant to § 1026.43(e)(3), the transaction's total points and fees exceed 3 percent of the total loan
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, in Regulation Z, comments 32(a)(1)(ii)-1.iv and -3.iv, 43(e)(3)(ii)-1.iv, and 52(b)(1)(ii)-2.i.E in supplement I are added to update the exemption thresholds. The amendments in this final rule are technical and non-discretionary, as they merely apply the method previously established in Regulation Z for determining adjustments to the thresholds. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. The amendments therefore are adopted in final form.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320), the Bureau reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
The additions read as follows:
1. * * *
iv. For 2018, $1,052, reflecting a 2.2 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2016 to June 2017, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
3. * * *
iv. For 2018, $21,032, reflecting a 2.2 percent increase in the CPI-U from June 2016 to June 2017, rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
1. * * *
iv. For 2018, reflecting a 2.2 percent increase in the CPI-U that was reported on the preceding June 1, a covered transaction is not a qualified mortgage unless the transaction's total points and fees do not exceed:
A. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $105,158: 3 percent of the total loan amount;
B. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $63,095 but less than $105,158: $3,155;
C. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $21,032 but less than $63,095: 5 percent of the total loan amount;
D. For a loan amount greater than or equal to $13,145 but less than $21,032: $1,052;
E. For a loan amount less than $13,145: 8 percent of the total loan amount.
2. * * *
i. * * *
E. Card issuers were permitted to impose a fee for violating the terms of an agreement if the fee did not exceed $27 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A) and $38 under § 1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(B), through December 31, 2017.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-
This AD is effective October 4, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 4, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that it appreciates the credit for actions done prior to the effective date of the AD specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.
Boeing requested that we revise the Discussion section to add the vertical stabilizer location in the sentence “The cracks were in the upper left area of the bulkhead, between longerons L-2 and L-3, in the frame web, horizontal stiffeners, lower frame cap, [vertical stabilizer] rear spar cap, and spar cap web.”
We partially agree with Boeing's request. The added wording does accurately indicate the cracking location. However, this description is not repeated in this final rule. Therefore, no change is needed in this regard.
Boeing and Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to include Model MD-88 airplanes in the cant station 1463 bulkhead group instead of the cant station 1254 bulkhead group. The commenters explained that Model MD-88 airplanes share the same fuselage length (and hence, station numbers) as Model DC-9-81, DC-9-82, and DC-9-83 airplanes. The commenters also request that, with the requested change to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, we remove paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD since there would be no need for that exception to the service information.
We agree with the commenters' requests. The cant station 1463 bulkhead is correct for Model MD-88 airplanes. This group revision does not change the overall scope of the actions required for Model MD-88 airplanes. We agree that the service information exception in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD is no longer needed. We have revised the Model MD-88 grouping in paragraph (g) of this AD, removed paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD, and redesignated paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD as paragraph (h) in this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection on the left and right sides of the forward and aft surfaces of cant station 1463 bulkhead and cant station 1254 bulkhead for cracking in the upper caps, upper cap doublers, bulkhead webs and doublers, stiffeners, lower caps, and vertical stabilizer rear spar caps and webs, between longerons L-11L through L-11R, and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 361 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 4, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of various structures at the cant station 1463 bulkhead and at the cant station 1254 bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at the cant station 1463 bulkhead and cant station 1254 bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 700 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection for cracking on the left and right sides of the forward and aft surfaces of the cant station 1463 bulkhead (for Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), and DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes) and cant station 1254 bulkhead (for Model DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes); and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016, except as required in paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-16-0684-01B, dated October 7, 2016.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, but concurrence by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, is required before issuance of the special flight permit.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector,
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-53A316, dated December 15, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission, or CPSC) is issuing a final rule that determines that certain plastics with specified additives would not contain the specified phthalates prohibited in children's toys and child care articles. Based on these determinations, the specified plastics with specified additives will not require third party testing for compliance with the mandatory prohibitions on children's toys and child care articles containing phthalates.
The rule is effective on September 29, 2017.
John W. Boja, Lead Compliance Officer, Regulatory Enforcement, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone: 301-504-7300; email:
Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, (CPSA), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), requires that manufacturers of products subject to a consumer product safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation enforced by the CPSC, must certify that the product complies with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). For children's products, certification must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body.
Section 108(a) of the CPSIA permanently prohibits the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States of any “children's toy or child care article” that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP). 15 U.S.C. 2057c(a). Section 108(b)(1) prohibits on an interim basis (
The CPSIA required the Commission to appoint a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to “study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and child care articles.” 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2). The CHAP issued
On August 17, 2016, the Commission published an NPR in the
CPSC received 11 comments on the NPR. Below, we summarize the key issues raised by the comments and provide responses.
Some commenters express support for the proposed rule as a means to reduce third party testing costs.
• Use “propylene” instead of “PP monomer”;
• Use “ethylene” instead of “PE monomer”;
• Note that many additives are not added to virgin PE, and not all additives will be included in most plastic used by manufacturers;
• No longer list benzene as a raw material for HIPS; and
• No longer state that Ziegler-Natta catalysts are not directly used in the production of HIPS.
The commenters' did not suggest changes to the codified text of the rule.
Suppliers may use the common name and not the CASRN to identify the plastics sold to component part manufacturers or children's product manufacturers. Additionally, a rule listing only CASRNs could be unnecessarily restrictive, excluding versions of the specified plastics that are equally expected always to comply with the phthalates content limits. Conceivably, a plastic resin plus a specific combination of these additives could be assigned a unique CASRN, and would be excluded from using the third party testing determinations, if the determinations were limited to a defined set of CASRNs.
Another commenter states that hard plastics are at high risk of contamination with phthalates. The commenter asserts that they have measured the commenter has measured “high” concentrations of phthalates on
The final rule is based on information about the use and production of phthalates and about the production of the specific plastics. Therefore, a testing study is not necessary. The information shows that phthalates are not used as plasticizers for the specified plastics and do not have other uses that would result in phthalate content in the plastics at levels exceeding the specified limit for children's toys and child care articles. Thus, the final rule is not based on manufacturers' choices or promises to use non-phthalate formulations, but rather, the rule is based on technical studies demonstrating that phthalates have no function or value in the specified plastics.
Another commenter suggests that the final rule incorporate a provision that plastics meeting a hardness specification are exempt from third party testing requirements. According to the commenter, because rigid plastics' hardness would be compromised by the addition of phthalates, plastics with Shore A hardness of 90 or greater are unlikely to contain any prohibited phthalate in concentrations above 0.1 percent with a high degree of assurance.
Plasticized polyvinyl chloride (PVC) typically contains phthalates in concentrations up to 40 percent or more. “Rigid” PVC has been shown to be noncompliant to the content limit of 0.1 percent. Furthermore, PVC is often recycled into new PVC products. Recycling of PVC provides a path for plasticized PVC to be used in a new “rigid” product that is noncompliant with the prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA. The determinations in the final rule for materials that do not, and will not, contain the specified phthalates at concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent are based on information about raw materials and manufacturing processes. Physical characteristics about finished products are not sufficient information to indicate that a plastic complies with the prohibitions of section 108 of the CPSIA.
One of these commenters specifically requests that the Commission extend the exclusion for high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) to crystal and general-purpose polystyrene (GPPS, or GPS), medium-impact polystyrene (MIPS), and super-high-impact polystyrene (SHIPS) grades.
Another commenter urges the CPSC to continue to review other plastics for exemptions from required third party testing for phthalate content. Finally, a commenter suggests that the Commission allow suppliers of novel resin and additive combinations to warrant that the materials comply with the requirements of the CPSIA to a high degree of assurance. The commenter suggests that a third party testing exception could be granted based on “demonstrated data.”
However, after submission of the NPR to the Commission, CPSC's contractor completed another report (the Task 16 report), which included information about the additional polystyrene-based plastics, GPPS, MIPS, and SHIPS, mentioned by the commenter.
Staff examined the Task 16 report and determined that GPPS, MIPS, SHIPS, and HIPS can be considered members of a family of polystyrene plastics. GPPS is the polystyrene component of HIPS, MIPS, and SHIPS, as described in the Task 12 and Task 16 reports. GPPS does not involve the use of phthalates in its manufacture, or as an additive. Because GPPS is brittle, polybutadiene rubber is added as a “shock absorber,” to increase the impact resistance of the polystyrene-butadiene mixture. In the manufacturing of polybutadiene, Ziegler-Natta catalysts, which can include DBP, DIBP, and DEHP, are used, raising the possibility that these phthalate components of the catalysts could remain in the processed plastics. However, catalysts are washed from the polybutadiene, and the remaining phthalate concentrations are not likely to exceed the 0.1 percent limit.
Medium-impact polystyrene consists of GPPS with about two to five percent butadiene added.
The Task 16 report largely referred to the information about HIPS summarized in the previous Task 12 report because of the lack of additional references for the specific polystyrene materials and the similarities among the various polystyrene materials described in the general references. No specific reference in the Task 16 report identified the use of phthalates in production of GPPS, MIPS, HIPS, or SHIPS for consumer products. Additional research by staff did not discover any more information, suggesting that phthalates may be used to produce these polystyrene-based materials.
Because the Task 12 and 16 reports and staff's research show that phthalates are not used in GPPS, MIPS, and SHIPS (except as a catalyst to make the butadiene component), and the final concentration of phthalates in the polystyrene-based materials are likely to be well below 0.1 percent, the Commission agrees with the commenter that these materials can be included in the determination, along with HIPS. The codified text of the final rule adds GPPS, MIPS, and SHIPS to HIPS and the accompanying additives.
Regarding the commenter's suggestion to allow suppliers of novel resin and additive combinations to warrant that the materials comply with the requirements of the CPSIA, section 14 of the CPSA does not allow warrants to substitute for required third party testing. The Commission could consider determinations regarding third party testing requirements for new plastics or other materials in the future, if sufficient data and other information show that third party testing is not required to assure compliance. Currently, the Commission lacks those data.
Furthermore, although we understand the typical uses of phthalates and generally the types of products that may contain phthalates in concentrations exceeding 0.1 percent, we do not agree that specifying a list of products and materials that would have to be tested (as opposed to specifying materials that do not require testing to demonstrate conformance with the standard) is practical, given the range of materials that may contain phthalates and the possibility of future development of novel uses for the specified phthalates.
Accessible component parts of children's toys and child care articles made with a plastic or additives not listed in paragraph (a) of this section are required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107.
Section 108(c) of the CPSIA states:
APPLICATION.—Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, subsections (a) and (b)(1) and any rule promulgated under subsection (b)(3) shall apply to any plasticized component part of a children's toy or child care article or any other component part of a children's toy or child care article that is made of other materials that may contain phthalates.
The commenter asserts that because this language limited required third party testing for phthalate content to accessible
The commenter suggests that the language in proposed § 1308.2(c) should state:
Accessible component parts of children's toys and child care articles made with a plastic or additives not listed in paragraph (a) of this section must still be comprised of compliant materials pursuant to section 108 of CPSIA, Public Law 110-314 as amended by H.R. 2714, Public Law 112-28.
The commenter asserts that this change to the language recommended above will reflect Congressional intent and be consistent with CPSC phthalate testing policy that has been effectively used by some companies to eliminate phthalate testing on materials known to be compliant.
We acknowledge that § 1308.2(c) of the proposed rule could be interpreted as conflicting with section 108(c) of the CPSIA. Thus, we have revised § 1308.2(c) in the final rule to clarify that the rule concerns accessible component parts of children's toys and child care articles made from materials that are plasticized or may contain phthalates.
We are making this change because, if a manufacturer or importer (
Another commenter states that importers often have limited knowledge of their products' materials and lack the evidence to demonstrate compliance without testing. The commenter suggests that manufacturers use an Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) sensor to identify materials that do not contain prohibited phthalates.
The commenter requested that the preamble clarify that manufacturers must use due diligence to ensure that their products only have plastics that are covered by the determination. The commenter states that screening tests, conducted on a first party basis, would reduce third party testing costs while ensuring compliance to the CPSIA.
• Determining the type of plastic;
• Verifying that the plastic is what a supplier declares;
• Confirming that there has been no contamination; and
• Confirming there have been no material changes through supply chain traceability and production safeguards.
The commenter asserts that these responsibilities reside with the certifying party (domestic manufacturer or importer).
The commenter provides as examples:
• The presence or concentration of the specified phthalates in polyethylene was not reported in TERA report.
• Other studies cited in the Task 12 report and patents for toys and child care products did not include information on the presence of phthalates in ABS.
• Zeigler-Natta catalysts (which can contain the prohibited phthalates) could remain in high-impact polystyrene at a concentration of 0.0001 percent, but no test data had been supplied to support that claim.
• There is a lack of information on phthalates in recycled plastics; and
• Information on the possibility of a plastic's contamination with a specified phthalate is also lacking.
We agree that few studies directly measured phthalate content in the specified plastics. However, we expected that such studies might be rare, given that the available information does not indicate that phthalates might be present.
We acknowledge that the literature on recycling is not as extensive as the data on phthalates and plastics manufacturing. Nonetheless, we consider all of the information about phthalates' use and occurrence to indicate that recycling could result in plastics that contain traces of phthalates. We expect that residual levels would be well below the maximum-allowed concentration in children's toys and child care articles.
In work done by a contractor and presented in the Task 12 and 16 reports, the contractor was faced with “proving a negative,”
Given the search strategy and its success at getting the other information, we can be confident that if there had been information on the phthalate content of the four plastics we would have found it. In fact, the consistent lack of information amongst the many places we searched, both secondary authoritative web and library sources and primary literature sources made us highly confident that there was very little information on the specified phthalates in the four plastics.
In the Task 16 report, the contractor screened more than 179,000 sources for relevant information on the specified plastics and phthalates in a nonbiased manner that was representative of the world wide literature on this subject matter. As in the Task 12 report, the contractor states that its Task 16 report search strategy and its success at obtaining other information gives them confidence that, if there had been information on the phthalate content of the specified plastics, then they would have found it.
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, CPSC considers the Task 12 and 16 reports to provide a high degree of assurance that the specified plastics do not contain any prohibited phthalates in concentrations above 0.1 percent.
Regarding the commenter's concerns about unintentional or unknown factors, we note that manufacturers and importers are required to have a high degree of assurance that their products are compliant to the applicable children product safety rules. Furthermore, manufacturers and importers are responsible for exercising due care to ensure their children's products comply with the applicable children's product safety rules. 16 CFR 1109.5(b)(3).
The commenter adds that TERA is a founding member of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA). The ARA's Standing Panel includes the TERA founder, two industry consultants, employees of Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil, and two government employees. The commenter alleges that, in light of TERA's relationship with ExxonMobil, TERA's conclusions should be viewed with caution.
As standard procedure, CPSC reviews potential conflicts of interest before awarding a contract or task order. We did not identify any conflicts for TERA related to the investigation of the production and use of phthalates or the production of the specified plastics.
We do not agree that the membership in ARA is evidence of a potential conflict of interest. Rather, we consider ARA to be a transparent, multi-stakeholder scientific collaboration to develop risk assessment information to advance public health activities. Furthermore, the commenter does not specify any projects by the ARA that suggest that the contracted TERA work is affected by potential conflicts of interest.
In summary, the commenter did not provide any specific information that shows that the reports produced by TERA under contract with CPSC have been affected by potential conflicts of interest. Nor did the commenter show that the reports contain inaccurate or misleading data or information.
We also received comments on issues such as random spot checking for certificates of compliance, developing a procedure for petitioning the Commission for determinations, identifying statistical averaging and margins of error under which products could still be considered compliant, allowing other techniques beyond materials determinations for lead content testing that could reduce third party testing costs, asking Congress for authority to implement commenter's suggestions, determinations for lead content, and the inclusion of supply chain controls when noncompliant products are found. This rulemaking is limited to determinations regarding phthalate content in specified plastics. The aforementioned comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
As noted above, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires third party testing for children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Children's toys and child care articles must comply with the phthalates prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA. 15 U.S.C. 2057c. In response to statutory direction, the Commission has investigated approaches that would reduce the burden of third party testing while also assuring compliance with CPSC requirements. As part of that endeavor, the Commission has considered whether certain materials used in children's toys and child care articles would not require third party testing.
To issue a determination that a plastic (including specified additives) does not require third party testing, the Commission must have sufficient evidence to conclude that the plastic and specified additives would consistently comply with the CPSC requirement to which the plastic (and specified additives) is subject so that third party testing is unnecessary to provide a high degree of assurance of compliance. Under 16 CFR 1107.2, “a high degree of assurance” is defined as “an evidence-based demonstration of consistent performance of a product regarding compliance based on knowledge of a product and its manufacture.”
For a material determination, a “high degree of assurance of compliance” means that the material will comply with the specified chemical limits due to the nature of the material or due to a processing technique that reduces the chemical concentration below its limit. For materials determined to comply with a chemical limit, the material must continue to comply with that limit if it is used in a children's product subject to that requirement. A material on which a determination has been made cannot be altered or adulterated to render it noncompliant and then used in a children's product.
The determinations will only relieve the manufacturer's obligation to have the specified plastics and accompanying additives tested by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Children's toys and child care articles must still comply with the substantive phthalates content limits in section 108 of the CPSIA, regardless of any relief from third party testing requirements. Additionally, the manufacturer must issue a certificate stating that the product complies with CPSC requirements.
Phthalates are not naturally occurring materials, but are intentionally created and used in specific applications (
Section 3 of the CPSIA grants the Commission general rulemaking authority to issue regulations, as necessary, to implement the CPSIA. Public Law 110-314, sec. 3, Aug. 14, 2008. As noted previously, section 14 of the CPSA, as amended by the CPSIA, requires third party testing for children's products subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(d)(3)(B) of the CPSA, as amended by Public Law 112-28, gives the Commission the authority to “prescribe new or revised third party testing regulations if it determines that such regulations will reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with the applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, and regulations.”
The determinations will relieve the specified plastics and accompanying additives from the third party testing requirement of section 14 of the CPSA to support the required certification. However, the determinations would not apply to any other plastic or additives beyond those listed in the rule.
The rule creates a new part 1308 for “Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics.” The rule determines that the specified plastics and accompanying additives do not contain the statutorily prohibited phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP, DnOP) in concentrations above 0.1 percent, and thus, are not required to be third party tested to assure compliance with section 108 of the CPSIA.
Section 1308.1 of the rule explains the statutorily created requirements for children's toys and child care articles under section 108 of the CPSIA and the third party testing requirements for children's products. This section is unchanged from the proposed rule. As discussed in section A.2 of the preamble, currently, the agency is involved in rulemaking to determine whether to continue the interim prohibitions in section 108 and whether to prohibit any other children's products containing any other phthalates. At the time of publication of this final rule in the
Section 1308.2(a) of the rule establishes the Commission's determinations that the following seven plastics do not exceed the phthalates content limits with a “high degree of assurance” as that phrase is defined in 16 CFR part 1107. Section 1308.2(a) of the rule is being finalized as proposed, except for the following changes. The final rule:
• Adds “naphthenic oil” to the list of PP plasticizers in § 1308.2(a)(1)(i). Naphthenic oil is a nonphthalate plasticizer listed with paraffinic and mineral plasticizing oils in a Task 12 report reference and should have been included in the proposed rule but was inadvertently omitted;
• Adds the word “unrecovered” before “catalysts” in §§ 1308.2(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(iv), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(vii) of the final rule to clarify that this additive refers to small amounts of catalyst that may remain in a plastic resin after manufacture;
• Adds general purpose polystyrene (GPPS), medium-impact polystyrene (MIPS), and super high-impact polystyrene (SHIPS) to § 1308.2(a)(3), to high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) that was listed in the proposed rule, to the list of materials that can be determined not to require third party testing in order to assure compliance with section 108 of the CPSIA. This change is made based on a commenter's suggestion and supporting information from the Task 16 report. These three plastics, along with HIPS, can be considered members of a family of polystyrene plastics manufactured with the same raw materials and processes. The potential additives for GPPS, MIPS, and SHIPS are the same as those for HIPS;
• Replaces the term “phosphate esters” in § 1308.2(a)(4)(i) with “hydrocarbon processing oil, triphenyl phosphate, resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate), and oligomeric phosphate” to more precisely identify the ABS plasticizers listed. The specific phosphate esters added were listed and discussed in the preamble of the NPR and the underlying staff briefing package, but were inadvertently left out of the codified text in the NPR; and
• Deletes “hydrocarbon solvents” from the list of additives for PP in § 1308.2(a)(1)(ii) and ABS in § 1308.2(a)(4)(ii) because hydrocarbon solvents are not additives but rather are used in the production of resin. The list of additives in §§ 1308.2(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(4)(ii) has been renumbered to reflect this change.
Section 1308.2(b) of the rule states that accessible component parts of children's toys and child care articles made with the specified plastics, and specified additives listed in paragraph (a) of this section, are not required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107. Section 1308.2(b) is included in the rule to make clear that when the listed plastics and accompanying additives are used in children's toys and child care articles, manufacturers and importers are not required to conduct the third party testing required in section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107. This provision is unchanged from the proposed rule.
Section 1308.2(c) of the rule has been revised to add the phrase “that are plasticized or may contain phthalates” between “in paragraph (a) of this section” and “are required to be third party tested.” The new language tracks the statutory language of section 108(c) of the CPSIA regarding component parts of children's toys or child care articles that are plasticized or may contain phthalates. If a manufacturer or importer (
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that a substantive rule must be published not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The Commission proposed a 30-day effective date because the rule provides relief from existing testing requirements under the CPSIA. No comments were received regarding the effective date. The effective date for the rule is 30 days from the date of publication of the rule in in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to consider the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FRFA must describe the impact of the rule on small entities. CPSC staff prepared a FRFA.
The rule is intended to reduce the burden of third party testing on manufacturers of children's toys and child care articles consistent with assuring compliance with CPSC requirements under section 14 of the CPSA, as amended by section 2 of Public Law 112-28. The final rule would reduce the burden of third party testing on manufacturers and importers of children's toys and child care articles by establishing determinations for certain plastics (PP, PE, GPPS, MIPS, HIPS, SHIPS, and ABS) and accompanying additives. Based on these determinations, the specified plastics with specified additives will not require third party testing for compliance with the mandatory prohibitions on children's toys and child care articles containing phthalates.
Although comprehensive estimates of the number of products that contain components made from the specified plastics are not available, there is some evidence that these plastics are extensively used in children's toys. One source stated that polypropylene and high-density polyethylene are used in 38 and 25 percent, respectively, of injection-molded toys.
Based on the number of domestic toy manufacturers that are classified as small businesses by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and evidence that the specified plastics are used extensively in toys, staff believes a substantial number of small entities would be impacted positively by this regulation.
The impact of the determinations on small businesses would be to reduce the burden of third party testing for phthalate content and would be expected to be entirely beneficial. The cost of third party testing for phthalates is between approximately $125 and $350 per test, depending on where the testing is conducted and any discounts that might be applicable.
Under section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a FRFA should include a “statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.” The final rule is itself, the result of CPSC's efforts to reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with all applicable consumer product safety rules. Therefore, CPSC considered few alternatives, other than expanding the list of plastics for which determinations could be made. We note that the final rule includes determinations for three additional polystyrenes (GPPS, MIPS, and SHIPS) that were not included in the NPR.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for Commission rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. The Commission's regulations state that safety standards for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Nothing in this rule alters that expectation.
Business and industry, Consumer protection, Imports, Infants and children, Product testing and certification, Toys.
Accordingly, the Commission amends title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1308 to read as follows:
Sec. 3, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016; 15 U.S.C. 2063(d)(3)(B).
Section 108(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) permanently prohibits any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). Section 108(b)(1) of the CPSIA prohibits on an interim basis any children's toy that can be placed in a child's mouth or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP). Materials used in children's toys and child care articles subject to section 108(a) and (b)(1) of the CPSIA must comply with the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), unless listed in § 1308.2.
(a) The following plastics do not exceed the phthalates content limits with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107:
(1) Polypropylene (PP), with any of the following additives:
(i) The plasticizers polybutenes, dioctyl sebacate, isooctyl tallate, paraffinic, naphthenic, and mineral plasticizing oils, and polyol;
(ii) Unrecovered catalysts;
(iii) Fillers;
(iv) Primary and secondary antioxidants;
(v) Neutralizing agents;
(vi) Antistatic agents;
(vii) Slip agents;
(viii) Metal deactivators;
(ix) Quenchers;
(x) UV stabilizers;
(xi) Nucleating agents;
(xii) Flame retardants;
(xiii) Blowing or foaming agents;
(xiv) Antiblocking agents;
(xv) Lubricants; or
(xvi) Colorants.
(2) Polyethylene (PE), with any of the following additives:
(i) The plasticizers glyceryl tribenzoate, polyethylene glycol, sunflower oil, paraffin wax, paraffin oil, mineral oil, glycerin, EPDM rubber, and EVA polymer;
(ii) Initiators;
(iii) Promoters;
(iv) Unrecovered catalysts;
(v) Fillers;
(vi) Antistatic agents;
(vii) Flame retardants;
(viii) Anti-blocking agents;
(ix) Slip agents;
(x) Blowing agents;
(xi) Cross-linking agents;
(xii) Antioxidants;
(xiii) Carbon black; or
(xiv) Colorants.
(3) General purpose polystyrene (GPPS), medium-impact polystyrene (MIPS), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), and super high-impact polystyrene (SHIPS) with any of the following additives:
(i) Unrecovered catalysts;
(ii) Internal lubricants;
(iii) Chain transfer/transition agents;
(iv) Stabilizers;
(v) Diluents;
(vi) Colorants;
(vii) Aluminum chloride, ethyl chloride, hydrochloric acid;
(viii) Iron oxide, potassium oxide, chromium oxide; or
(ix) Bifunctional peroxides.
(4) Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), with any of the following additives:
(i) The plasticizers hydrocarbon processing oil, triphenyl phosphate, resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate), oligomeric phosphate, long chain fatty acid esters and aromatic sulfonamide;
(ii) Stabilizers;
(iii) Lubricants;
(iv) Antioxidants;
(v) Molecular weight regulators;
(vi) Initiators/unrecovered catalysts,
(vii) Activators;
(viii) Emulsifiers; or
(ix) Colorants.
(b) Accessible component parts of children's toys and child care articles made with the specified plastics, and specified additives, listed in paragraph (a) of this section are not required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107.
(c) Accessible component parts of children's toys and child care articles made with a plastic or additives not listed in paragraph (a) of this section that are plasticized or may contain phthalates are required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107.
Department of State.
Final rule; notice of temporary modification.
The Department of State, pursuant to its regulations and in the interest of the security of the United States, temporarily modifies Category XI of the United States Munitions List (USML).
Amendatory instructions 1 and 2 are effective August 30, 2017. Amendatory instruction No. 3 is effective August 30, 2018.
Mr. Robert Monjay, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2817; email
On July 1, 2014, the Department published a final rule revising Category XI of the USML, 79 FR 37536, effective December 30, 2014. That final rule, consistent with the two prior proposed rules for USML Category XI (78 FR 45018, July 25, 2013 and 77 FR 70958, November 28, 2012), revised paragraph (b) of Category XI to clarify the extent of control and maintain the existing scope of control on items described in paragraph (b) and the directly related software described in paragraph (d). The Department has determined that exporters may read the revised control language to exclude certain intelligence-analytics software that has been and remains controlled on the USML. Therefore, the Department determined that it is in the interest of the security of the United States to temporarily revise USML Category XI paragraph (b), pursuant to the provisions of 22 CFR 126.2, while a long-term solution is developed. The Department will publish any permanent revision to USML Category XI paragraph (b) addressing this issue as a proposed rule for public comment.
This temporary revision clarifies that the scope of control in existence prior to December 30, 2014 for USML paragraph (b) and directly related software in paragraph (d) remains in effect. This clarification is achieved by reinserting the words “analyze and produce information from” and by adding software to the description of items controlled.
The Department previously published a final rule on July 2, 2015 (80 FR 37974) that temporarily modified USML Category XI(b) until December 29, 2015. The Department published a final rule on December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78130) that continued the July 2, 2015 modification to August 30, 2017. This final rule extends the July 2, 2015 modification to August 30, 2018 to allow the U.S. government to review USML Category XI in full and publish proposed and final rules.
The Department is publishing this rule as a final rule based upon good cause, and its determination that delaying the effect of this rule during a period of public comment would be impractical, unnecessary and contrary to public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, the Department is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule under the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
The Department believes that benefits of the rulemaking outweigh any costs, which are estimated to be insignificant. This rulemaking is not an economically significant rule under the criteria of Executive Order 12866, and is consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 13563.
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
This rule is not subject to the requirements of EO 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a foreign affairs function of the United States.
Arms and munitions, Classified information, Exports.
For reasons stated in the preamble, the State Department amends 22 CFR part 121 as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920; Section 1261, Pub. L. 112-239; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
*(b) Electronic systems, equipment or software, not elsewhere enumerated in this subchapter, specially designed for intelligence purposes that collect, survey, monitor, or exploit, or analyze and produce information from, the electromagnetic spectrum (regardless of transmission medium), or for counteracting such activities.
*(b) Electronic systems or equipment, not elsewhere enumerated in this subchapter, specially designed for intelligence purposes that collect, survey, monitor, or exploit the electromagnetic spectrum (regardless of transmission medium), or for counteracting such activities.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to repair the bridge for safe continued operation. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for approximately three (3) hours on one day until the repair is completed.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. through 9 a.m. on September 9, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2017-0785) is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. This bridge is governed by 33 CFR 117.5.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so the 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.
Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulations; request for comments.
The Coast Guard has issued a deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Stillwater Highway Bridge across the St. Croix River, mile 23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from August 30, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. October 15, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. on August 25, 2017, until August 30, 2017.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 28, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0687 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this test deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email
The Stillwater Highway Bridge, across the St. Croix River, mile 23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota, has been modified in its use from motorized vehicle traffic to pedestrian and bicycle use only. The existing operation schedule of the bridge is no longer necessary as it had been created solely to reduce the impact of drawspan openings on motorized vehicle traffic. This test deviation requires the bridge to open daily, every 30 minutes from 8 a.m. until midnight, and upon two hours notice from midnight until 8 a.m. This test deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on August 25, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on October 15, 2017.
The Stillwater Highway Bridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.667(b).
The Stillwater Highway Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 10.9 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial sightseeing/dinner cruise boats and recreational watercraft and will not be significantly impacted.
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.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is extending the duration of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Wando River within a 500-yard radius of the SC-41 Bridge, vessels and machinery in Charleston, South Carolina. The safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by demolition work on the SC-41 Bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of
This rule is effective from August 30, 2017 through November 30, 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 Lieutenant Justin Heck, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to protect the public from the hazards associated with the demolition of the SC-41 Bridge. On August 11, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule, entitled “Safety Zone; Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River, Charleston, SC” in the
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. On August 11, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule, entitled “Safety Zone; Demolition of SC-41 Bridge, Wando River, Charleston, SC” in the
This rule extends the duration of the temporary safety zone on the waters of the Wando River in Charleston, South Carolina during the SC-41 bridge demolition. The company conducting the demolition contacted the Coast Guard asking for more time to complete the demolition. The demolition will take over two separate demolition periods between August 31, 2017 and November 30, 2017, during which the safety zone will be enforced for approximately six hours each. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the bridge, vessels, and machinery being used for the demolition of the SC-41 Bridge. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 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 the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of twelve hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area surrounding the SC-41 Bridge on the waters of the Wando River for two six hour periods. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Record of Environmental Consideration 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, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Correcting amendments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a final rule to revise our regulations regarding permits that we issue for certain activities involving eagles. In that final rule, we revised the permit application fees for certain eagle permits. These permits are included in a table of permit application fees for numerous Service programs. Because of a formatting error in the rule, the revisions to the fee table were not incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as intended. With this document, we correct the formatting error to properly reflect current application fees for eagle permits in the CFR and also remove two entries in the fee table pertaining to permits that no longer exist. This rule is purely an administrative action and does not affect the provisions of the original rule in any substantive way.
This correction is effective August 30, 2017.
Susan Wilkinson, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; 703-358-2506.
On December 16, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule (81 FR 91494) to revise the regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) authorizing certain activities involving eagles. These regulations are in parts 13 and 22 of title 50. While the majority of the changes in the rule were to the regulations in part 22, we also revised application fees associated with some part 22 eagle permits and the administration fee for eagle permits over 5 years and incorporated those changes into the permit fee table at 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4), which sets forth user fees for permits issued by several Service programs.
The amendatory instruction that published in that final rule to revise the table in 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4) would have reduced the number of columns in the table from five to four. Because one column (the “Administration fee” column) had an entry for only one type of permit, we intended to remove that column and insert the information regarding the administration fee for that permit as a footnote to the table. While the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) allowed the final rule to be published with that instruction, upon reviewing the rule for codification into the Code of Federal Regulations, OFR decided that the amendatory instruction removing the Administration fee column was inappropriate. Instead of revising the table as we intended, OFR left the table unchanged and instead included this footnote to the table in 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4): “Editorial Note: At 81 FR 91549, Dec. 16, 2016, § 13.11 was amended; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.”
This rule corrects the amendatory instruction in the December 16, 2016, final rule (81 FR 91494), so that the CFR properly incorporates all the revisions made by that rule.
We are also taking this opportunity to correct two longstanding errors in the table at § 13.11(d)(4). In the section “Migratory Bird Treaty Act” is an entry for “Falconry,” and in the section “Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act” is an entry for “Eagle falconry.” We are removing both of these entries from the table as they remain there in error: They should have been removed via a former rulemaking action. On October 8, 2008, we published a final rule (73 FR 59448) that revised the regulations pertaining to falconry. In that rule, we stated that Federal permitting for falconry would cease as of January 1, 2014, and, as of that date, States, territories, and Tribes would be responsible for issuing falconry permits. The rule revised pertinent sections of 50 CFR parts 21 and 22 but failed to make the necessary corresponding changes to the fee table in part 13. Accordingly, since we no longer issue Federal permits for falconry, we hereby remove two entries regarding application fees for falconry permits from the table in § 13.11(d)(4).
We issue this final rule under the authority of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d).
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons described in the preamble, we hereby amend subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j-l, 1374(g), 1382, 1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Aleutian district (WAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in this area allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 25, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 TAC of Pacific ocean perch, in the WAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 161 metric tons by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826; February 27, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the WAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
After the effective dates of this closure, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the Pacific ocean perch directed fishery in the WAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 22, 2017. The Acting AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information; extension of public comment period.
On July 31, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a request for information (RFI) pertaining to the test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors. The notice provided an opportunity for submitting written comments, data, and information by August 30, 2017. This document announces an extension of the comment period until September 13, 2017.
The comment period for the RFI, published on July 31, 2017 (82 FR 35468), is extended. DOE will accept written comments, data, and information in response to the RFI received no later than September 13, 2017.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document.
The docket Web page can be found at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-5B 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Mary Greene, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1817. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
DOE published a RFI pertaining to the test procedure for small electric motors and electric motors on July 31, 2017. 82 FR 35468. The RFI initiated a data collection process to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedures for small electric motors and electric motors, and whether new test procedures are needed for motors beyond those subject to the existing Federal test procedures. DOE requested written comment, data, and information pertaining to these test procedures by August 30, 2017.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), an interested party in the matter, requested a two-week extension of the public comment period for the RFI published in the
DOE believes that extending the comment period to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments is appropriate. Therefore, DOE is extending the comment period until September 13, 2017 to provide interested parties additional time to prepare and submit comments. Accordingly, DOE will consider any comments received by September 13, 2017 to be timely submitted.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 16, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of cracking in the webs of the stub beams at fuselage station (STA) 685, STA 695, and STA 706. These cracks are a result of fatigue caused by cyclical loading from pressurization, wing loads, and landing loads.
Cracks have occurred in the stub beam webs at STA 685 on the left and right sides of airplanes, with total flight cycles ranging between 21,673 and 45,892 at the time of the crack finding. Cracks have occurred in the stub beam webs at STA 695 on the left and right sides of airplanes, with total flight cycles ranging between 49,572 and 56,712 at the time of crack findings. Cracks have also occurred in the stub beam webs at STA 706 on the left and right sides of airplanes with total flight cycles ranging between 12,017 and 64,392 at the time of crack findings.
Cracking in the stub beam webs at certain fuselage stations, if not corrected, could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airframe during flight, collapse of the main landing gear, and failure of the pressure deck.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017. The service information describes procedures for doing high frequency eddy current and detailed inspections for cracking of the fuselage stub beam webs below the passenger floor at STA 685, STA 695, and STA 706, and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 160 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by October 16, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the webs of the stub beams at certain fuselage stations. These cracks are the result of fatigue caused by cyclical loading from pressurization, wing loads, and landing loads. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the webs of the stub beams at certain fuselage stations, which if not corrected, could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airframe during flight, collapse of the main landing gear, and failure of the pressure deck.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017, within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the stub beam webs for any cracking, and do all applicable on-condition actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For Group 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “the effective date of this AD” may be substituted for “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” which is specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, dated May 24, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify VOR Federal Airways V-113 and V-244 which caused navigational aid gaps due to the decommissioning of Manteca and Maxwell VORs.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0344 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-11 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0344 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-11) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0344, and Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
On January 5, 2017, the FAA published in the
In the final rule, published on April 20, 2017, the FAA decided to delay the proposed changes to V-244 because more coordination was required. (82 FR 18551), Docket No. FAA-2016-9264. The FAA finalized V-113 as proposed in the NPRM with a gap in the route structure between Panoche, California and Linden, California. Prior to the effective date of June 22, 2017, and without notification to the public, the FAA inadvertently published navigational charts that reflected the gap in V-113 had been filled. Because this portion of the airway reflected on the chart was not properly established by rule, the FAA issued an out-of-service NOTAM for this segment until a rulemaking action could be completed.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify V-113 and V-244. The proposed route changes are outlined below.
VOR federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Morro Bay, CA; Paso Robles, CA; Priest, CA; Panoche, CA; INT Modesto 208°(T) 191°(M) and El Nido 277°(T) 262°(M) radials; Modesto, CA; Linden, CA; INT Linden 046°(T) 029°(M) and Mustang, NV, 208°(T) 192°(M) radials; Mustang; 42 miles, 24 miles, 115 MSL, 95 MSL, Sod House, NV; 67 miles, 95 MSL, 85 MSL, Rome, OR; 61 miles, 85 MSL, Boise, ID; Salmon, ID; Coppertown, MT; Helena, MT; to Lewistown, MT.
From Oakland, CA; INT Oakland 077°(T) 060°(M) and Linden, CA, 246°(T) 229°(M) radials; Linden; 30 miles, 153 MSL, INT Linden 094°(T) 077°(M) and Hangtown, CA, 157°(T) 140°(M) radials; 58 miles, 153 MSL, INT Coaldale, CA, 267°(T) 250°(M) and Friant, CA, 022°(T) 005°(M) radials; 23 miles, 153 MSL, INT Coaldale 267°(T) 250°(M) and Bishop, CA, 337°(T) 322°(M) radials; 43 miles, 125 MSL, Coaldale, NV; Tonopah, NV; 40 miles, 115 MSL, Wilson Creek, NV; 28 miles, 115 MSL, Milford, UT; Hanksville, UT; 63 miles, 13 miles, 140 MSL, 36 miles, 115 MSL, Montrose, CO; Blue Mesa, CO; 33 miles, 122 MSL, 27 miles, 155 MSL, Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; 20 miles, 116 miles, 65 MSL, Hays, KS; to Salina, KS. The airspace within R-2531A and R-2531B is excluded.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Under OSHA's standard for cranes and derricks used in construction work, crane operators are to be certified by November 10, 2017. Until that date, employers also have duties under the standard to ensure that crane operators are trained and competent to operate the crane safely. The Agency delayed the deadline for operator certification by three years to November 10, 2017, and extended the existing employer duties for the same period. The Agency is proposing to delay the deadline and extend the existing employer duty to ensure that operators of equipment covered by this standard are competent to operate the equipment safely for one year to November 17, 2018.
Submit comments to this proposed rule, including comments to the information collection (paperwork) determination (described under the section titled “Agency Determinations”), hearing requests, and other information by September 29, 2017. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.
Submit comments, hearing requests, and other material, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-0066, using any of the following methods:
OSHA is publishing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend for one year the employer duty to ensure crane operator competency for construction work, from November 10, 2017, to November 10, 2018. OSHA also is proposing to delay the enforcement date for crane operator certification for one year from November 10, 2017, to November 10, 2018. This would be the second delay of the enforcement date, which OSHA needs to address stakeholder concerns over the operator certification requirements in the 2010 cranes and derricks in construction standard.
This proposed rule is not economically significant. OSHA proposes to revise 29 CFR 1926.1427(k) (competency assessment and training) to delay the deadline for compliance with the operator certification requirement in its construction standard for cranes and derricks, and to extend the existing employer duties for the same period. OSHA's preliminary economic analysis shows that delaying the date for operator certification and employers' assessment of crane operators, rather than allowing both provisions to expire on November 10, 2017, will result in a net cost savings for the affected industries. Delaying the compliance date for operator certification results in estimated cost savings that exceed the estimated new costs for employers to continue to assess crane operators to
OSHA developed the final rule for cranes and derricks in construction (29 CFR subpart CC, referred to as “the crane standard” hereafter) through a negotiated rulemaking process. OSHA established a federal advisory committee, the Cranes and Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C-DAC), to develop a draft proposed rule. C-DAC met in 2003 and 2004 and developed a draft proposed rule (which included the provisions concerning crane operator certification at issue in this rulemaking) that it provided to OSHA. The rule OSHA subsequently proposed closely followed C-DAC's draft proposal (73 FR 59718).
The Agency initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel in 2006. The Agency published the proposed rule for cranes in construction in 2008, received public comment on the proposal, and conducted a public hearing. Among many other provisions, OSHA's final rule incorporated, with minor changes, the four-option certification scheme that C-DAC had recommended and the Agency had proposed. Accordingly, in § 1926.1427, as originally promulgated, OSHA required employers to ensure that their crane operators are certified under at least one of four options by November 10, 2014:
Option 1. Certification by an independent testing organization accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization;
Option 2. Qualification by an employer's independently audited program;
Option 3. Qualification by the U.S. military;
Option 4. Compliance with qualifying state or local licensing requirements (where mandatory).
The third-party certification option in § 1926.1427(b)—Option 1—is the only certification option that is “portable,” meaning that any employer who employs an operator may rely on that operator's certification as evidence of compliance with the crane standard's operator certification requirement. This certification option also is the only one that is available to all employers; it is the option that OSHA, and the parties that participated in the rulemaking, believed would be the one most widely used. In this regard, OSHA is not aware of an audited employer qualification program among construction industry employers (Option 2), and the crane standard limits the U.S. military crane operator certification programs (Option 3) to federal employees of the Department of Defense or the armed services. While state and local governments certify some crane operators (Option 4), the vast majority of operators who become certified do so through Option 1—by third-party testing organizations accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization.
Under Option 1, a third party performs testing. Before a testing organization can issue operator certifications, paragraph 1427(b)(1) of the crane standard provides that a nationally recognized accrediting organization must accredit the testing organizations. To accredit a testing organization, the accrediting agency must determine that the testing organization meets industry-recognized criteria for written testing materials, practical examinations, test administration, grading, facilities and equipment, and personnel. The testing organization must administer written and practical tests that:
• Assess the operator's knowledge and skills regarding subjects specified in the crane standard;
• provide different levels of certification based on equipment capacity and type;
• have procedures to retest applicants who fail; and
• have testing procedures for recertification.
Paragraph 1427(b)(2) of the final crane standard also specifies that, for the purposes of compliance with the crane standard, an operator is deemed qualified to operate a particular piece of equipment only if the operator is certified for that
The final crane standard replaced provisions in 29 CFR 1926 subpart N—Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors, of the construction safety standards. Provisions for employers to ensure that operators of equipment, including cranes, are trained and qualified to safely operate that equipment are available elsewhere in the construction safety standards (see, for example, § 1926.20(b)(4) and (f)(2)).
OSHA delayed the effective date of the operator certification requirement for four years, until November 10, 2014 (see § 1427(k)(1)). To make sure that crane operators knew how to operate equipment safely during this phase-in period, the Agency required employers to “ensure that operators of equipment covered by this standard are competent to operate the equipment safely” (§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(i)). When the operator “assigned to operate machinery does not have the required knowledge or ability to operate the equipment safely,” the standard requires employers to train and evaluate the operator (§ 1926.1427(k)(2)(ii)).
After OSHA issued the final rule, it continued to receive feedback from members of the regulated community and conducted stakeholder meetings on April 2 and 3, 2013, to give interested members of the public the opportunity to express their views. Participants included construction contractors, labor unions, crane manufacturers, crane rental companies, accredited testing organizations, one of the accrediting bodies, insurance companies, crane operator trainers, and military employers. Detailed notes of participants' comments are available at OSHA-2007-0066-0539. Various parties informed OSHA that, in their opinion, the operator certification option would not adequately ensure that crane operators could operate their equipment safely. They said a certified operator would need additional training, experience, and evaluation, beyond the training and evaluation required to obtain certification, to ensure that he or she could operate a crane safely.
OSHA also received information that two (of a total of four) accredited testing organizations have been issuing certifications only by “type” of crane, rather than by the “type and capacity” of crane, as the crane standard requires. As a result, those certifications do not meet the standard's requirements and operators who obtained certifications from only those organizations cannot, under OSHA's crane standard, operate cranes on construction sites after the new requirements become effective. Some stakeholders in the crane industry requested that OSHA remove the capacity requirement.
Most of the participants in the stakeholder meetings expressed the
In order to address the issues raised by industry stakeholders after publication of the final rule, OSHA proposed a rule delaying the compliance date for the operator certification requirements of the crane standard, and extending the employer duty to ensure that the operator was qualified for the particular crane work assigned, by three years until November 10, 2014, (79 FR 7611). Subsequently, OSHA conducted a hearing on the rulemaking on May 19, 2014, gathering more comments on the proposed extension (OSHA-2007-0066-0521).
On September 26, 2014, OSHA issued a final rule delaying the compliance date for operator certification for three years until November 10, 2017, (79 FR 57785). After publication of the final rule, OSHA began conducting site visits with a variety of stakeholders and the Agency drafted regulatory text with the purpose of addressing the capacity issue and the employer duty concerns.
On March 31 and April 1, 2015, OSHA convened a special meeting of Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health in which both ACCSH members and non-member industry stakeholders provided feedback on the draft regulatory text.
The effective dates of the operator certification requirement and the other “phase in” of employer duties are in 29 CFR 1926.1427(k)(1). The Agency is proposing to revise § 1427(k)(1) to delay the deadline for operator certification by one year from November 10, 2017, to November 10, 2018, to provide additional time for the Agency to propose and finalize a rulemaking that addresses stakeholders' concerns. The Agency also is proposing to extend the current employer duties in § 1926.1427(k)(2)(i) and (ii) to ensure there is no reduction in worker protection during this three-year period. When OSHA included these employer duties in the final crane standard in 2010, these duties were to be a “phase in” to certification (75 FR 48027). By extending the date to November 10, 2018, as proposed in this notice, the requirements would continue to serve that purpose and preserve the status quo.
Without an extension, the certification requirements from the crane standard will prevent operators without certification by crane capacity from operating cranes, potentially disrupting the construction industry by creating a large number of crane operators without compliant certifications. Without the extension, after November 10, 2017, there would not be any duty for employers to ensure that their operators are competent to operate the equipment safely. This could diminish the effectiveness of the final rule which OSHA previously estimated to prevent 22 fatalities per year (75 FR 47914).
OSHA seeks comment on this approach, including the duration of the proposed extension of the operator certification deadline and the existing employer duties. OSHA encourages commenters to include a rationale for any alternatives that they propose. OSHA also requests comment on the “Agency Determinations” section that follows, including the preliminary economic analysis, paperwork requirements, and other regulatory impacts of this rule on the regulated community.
When it issued the final crane rule in 2010, OSHA prepared a final economic analysis (2010 FEA) as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651
Because OSHA estimates this rule will have a cost savings for employers of $4.4 million using a discount rate of 3 percent for the one year of the extension, this final rule is not economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, or a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
This PEA focuses solely on costs, and not on any changes in safety and benefits resulting from extending the certification deadline and the employer duties under § 1926.1427(k)(2). OSHA previously provided its assessment of the benefits of the crane standard in the 2014 FEA of that standard. As noted elsewhere in this preamble, the primary rationale for this proposal is to maintain the status quo—including preservation of the employer duty to ensure that crane operators are competent—while providing OSHA additional time to conduct rulemaking on the crane
Extending the employer's requirement to ensure an operator's competency during this period means taking the same approach of the previous extension: Continuing measures in existence since OSHA published the crane standard in 2010. As OSHA stated in the preamble to the 2010 final rule, the interim measures in paragraph (k) “are not significantly different from requirements that were effective under subpart N of this part at former § 1926.550, § 1926.20(b)(4) (`the employer shall permit only those employees qualified by training or experience to operate equipment and machinery'), and § 1926.21(b)(2) (`the employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions . . .')” (75 FR 48027).
Delaying the operator certification requirement defers a regulatory requirement and produces cost savings for employers. There will, however, be continuing employer costs for extending the requirement to assess operators under existing § 1926.1427(k)(2); if OSHA does not extended these requirements, they will expire on November 10, 2017, and employers would not incur these costs after 2017. With the extension, these continuing employer costs will be offset by a reduction in expenses that employers would otherwise have been required to incur to ensure that their operators are certified before the existing November 2017 deadline.
In the following analysis, OSHA examines costs and savings to determine the net economic effect of the rule. By comparing the additional assessment costs to the certification cost savings across two scenarios—scenario 1 in which there is no extension of the 2017 deadline, and scenario 2 in which there is an extension until 2018—OSHA estimates that the extension will produce a net savings for employers of $4.4 million per year using a discount rate of 3 percent ($5.2 million per year using an interest rate of 7 percent).
OSHA's analysis follows the steps below to reach its estimate of an annual net $4.4 million in savings:
(1) Estimate the annual assessment costs for employers;
(2) Estimate the annual certification costs for employers; and
(3) Estimate the year-by-year cost differential for extending the certification deadline to 2018.
The methodology used here is substantially the same as used in the 2014 extension FEA. Table 1 below summarizes these costs and the differentials across the two scenarios. The major differences are updated wages and a revised forecast of the composition of the operator pool across certification levels. The 2014 FEA analysis addressed a 3-year extension, so it gradually increased the number of operators without any certification during that period. The model in this PEA addresses an extension of just a single year, so it holds the number of operators with each certification level constant. The latter significantly simplifies the analysis versus that presented in the 2014 FEA extension.
OSHA estimated the annual assessment costs using the following three steps: First, determine the unit costs of meeting this requirement; second, determine the number of assessments that employers will need to perform in any given year (this determination includes estimating the affected operator pool as a preliminary step); and finally, multiply the unit costs of meeting the requirement by the number of operators who must meet it in any given year.
The Agency estimates separate assessment costs for three types of affected operators, which together comprise all affected operators: Those who have a certificate that is in compliance with the existing crane standard; those who have a certificate that is not in compliance with the existing crane standard; and those who have no certificate.
The wages used for the crane operator and assessor come from the BLS Occupational Employment Survey for May 2016 (BLS 2017a), which is an updated version of the same source used in the 2014 extension. From this survey a crane operator's (Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 53-7021 Crane and Tower Operators) average hourly wage is $26.58. The full cost to the employer includes all benefits as well as the wage. From the BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation for December 2016 (BLS 2017b) the average percentage of benefits in total for the construction sector is 30.2%, giving a markup of the wage to the total compensation of 1.43
Multiplying the wages of operators, assessors, and candidates by the time taken for each type of assessment provides the cost for each type of assessment. Hence, the cost of assessing an operator already holding a certificate that complies with the standard (both type and capacity) is one hour of both the operator's and assessor's time: $79.27 ($38.08 + $41.19). For an operator with a certificate for crane type only (not crane capacity), the assessment time is 2.5 hours for a cost of $198.17 (2.5 × ($38.08 + $41.19)). Finally, for an operator with no certificate, the assessment time is 4.0 hours for a cost of $317.48 (4.0 × ($38.08 + $41.19)).
Besides these assessment costs, OSHA notes that § 1427(k)(2)(ii) requires employers to provide training to employees if they are not already competent to operate their assigned equipment. To determine whether an operator is competent, the employer must first perform an assessment. Only if an operator fails the assessment must the employer provide additional operator training required by § 1427(k)(2)(ii).
However, in determining this cost, OSHA made a distinction between a nonemployee candidate for an operator position and an operator who is currently an employee. For an employer assessing a nonemployee candidate, OSHA assumed, based on common industry practice, that the employer will not hire a nonemployee candidate who fails the assessment. In the second situation, an employee qualified to operate a crane fails a type and/or capacity assessment for a crane that differs from the crane the employee currently operates. In this situation, the cost-minimizing action for the employer is not to assign the employee to that type and/or capacity crane, thereby avoiding training costs. While the Agency acknowledges that there will be cases in which the employer will provide this training, it believes these costs to be minimal and, therefore, is not estimating costs for the training. OSHA made the same determinations in the 2014 PEA and did not receive public comment on them.
To calculate the estimated annual number of assessments, OSHA first estimated the current number of crane operators affected by the crane standard. The 2014 FEA estimated 117,130 operators and this PEA also uses this estimate. The Agency solicits comment and additional data on this estimate.
For the purpose of determining the number of assessments required each year under this proposal, OSHA is relying on the 23% turnover rate for operators originally identified in the 2008 PEA for the crane rule and used most recently in the extension 2014 FEA (79 FR 57793). This turnover rate includes all types of operators who would require assessment: Operators moving between employers; operators moving between different types and/or capacities of equipment; and operators newly entering the occupation. OSHA estimated that 26,940 assessments occur each year based on turnover (
The first part of the calculation is the same under both scenarios. Because the annual assessment costs vary by the different levels of assessment required (depending on the operator's existing level of certification), OSHA grouped the 117,130 operators subject to the crane standard into three classifications: Operators with a certificate that complies with the standard; operators with a certificate only for crane type; and operators with no certification. In order to simplify the estimation for this one-year extension (the 2014 extension was for 3 years) and reflect the last hard data point the Agency has, the Agency is using a static crane operator pool and the composition of the base operator population used in the 2014 deadline extension: 15,000 Crane operators currently have a certificate that complies with the existing crane standard, 71,700 have a certificate for crane type only (but not capacity), leaving 30,430 crane operators with no crane certification (117,130 total operators—(15,000 operators with compliant certification + 71,700 operators with certification for type only)).
Assuming the turnover rate of 23% and the failure rate of 15% for turnover-related assessments are distributed proportionally across the three types of operators, then the number of assessments for operators with compliant certification is 3,968 ((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 15,000), the number of assessments for operators with type-only certification is 18,965 ((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 71,700), and the number of assessments for operators with no certification is 8,049 ((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 30,430).
Under scenario 2 there is an extension and employers would not certify all of their operators during CY 2017. OSHA estimated the CY 2017 assessment costs for scenario 2 by multiplying the assessment numbers for each type of
Under both scenarios, once the 2010 rule comes into effect the employer duty to assess the crane operator no longer is in effect and so assessment costs are zero. Thus, in CY 2018, the assessment costs under scenario 1 would be zero. Under scenario 2, the assessment costs for CY 2018 would be the same as those under scenario 1 for CY 2017, because employers would be gradually certifying operators over the course of that year.
OSHA estimated the annual certification costs using the three steps: first, determine the unit costs of meeting this requirement; second, determine the number of affected operators; and, finally, multiply the unit costs of meeting the requirement by the number of operators who must meet them. In this PEA, following the same methodology as in the 2014 FEA, OSHA estimates that all certifications occur in the year prior to the deadline, hence in CY 2017 in scenario 1, while in CY2018 for the one-year extension in scenario 2. As in the annual assessment-cost analysis described above, OSHA provides the calculations for CY 2017 under the existing 2017 deadline (scenario 1), and then presents the certification costs for CY 2018 that would apply if OSHA extends the certification requirement to November 2018 (scenario 2).
OSHA estimated these different unit certification costs using substantially the same unit-cost assumptions used in the FEA for the 2010 crane standard (and exactly the same as the FEA of the 2014 deadline extension.) In those previous FEAs, OSHA estimated that training and certification costs for an operator with only limited experience would consist of $1,500 for a 2-day course (including tests) and 18 hours of the operator's time, for a total cost of $2,185.44 ($1,500 + (18 hours × $38.08)) (see 75 FR 48096-48097). OSHA continues to use a cost of $250 for the tests taken without any training (a constant fixed fee irrespective of the number of tests (75 FR 48096)), and the same number of hours used for each test that it used in the assessment calculations provided above (which the Agency based on certification test times). Accordingly, OSHA estimates the cost of a certificate compliant with the standard for an operator who has a type-only certificate to be $345.20 (
For Scenario 1, § 1926.1427(b)(4) specifies that a certificate is valid for five years. OSHA estimates the recertification unit cost would be the same as the assessment for an operator with compliant certification (
Finally, there will be certified operators who must obtain certification when assigned to a crane that differs by type and/or capacity from the crane on which they received their current certification. This situation requires additional training, but less training than required for a “new” operator with only limited experience. Accordingly, OSHA estimated the cost for these operators as one half of the cost of training and certifying a new operator, or $1,092.72 ($2,185.44/2).
Under scenario 1 (no extension), after all operators attain certification by November 2017 there will still be ongoing certification costs each year. With a constant total number of operators, the same number of operators (5,857) will be leaving the profession each year and will not require recertification when their current 5-year certification ends. This leaves 111,274 operators (117,130 − 5,857) who will need such periodic recertification. If we approximate the timing of requirements for recertification as distributed proportionally across years, then 20% of all operators with a 5-year certificate (22,255 operators (.20 × 111,274)) would require recertification each year.
A final category of unit certification costs involves the continuing need for certified operators to obtain further certification when assigned to a crane that differs by type and/or capacity from the crane on which they received their current certification. This situation arises for both operators working for a single employer and operators switching employers.
The operators who will not need multiple certifications in the post-deadline period are operators with certification who move to a new employer and operate a crane with the same type and capacity as the crane on which they received certification while with their previous employer. These operators will not need multiple certifications because operator certificates are portable across employers, as specified by the crane standard (see § 1427(b)(3)). For an employer looking to hire an operator for a specific crane, this option will minimize cost, and OSHA assumes employers will choose this option when possible.
After the certification deadline, OSHA estimates that each year 23% of the 117,130 operators (26,940 = 0.23 × 117,130) will enter the workforce, change employers, or take on new positions that require one or more additional certifications to operate different types and/or capacities of cranes. Of these 26,940 operators, OSHA estimates 5 of the total 23%, or 5,857 (0.05 × 117,130), will result from new operators entering the occupation each year; 9%, or 10,542 (0.09 × 117,130), will result from operators switching employers but operating a crane of the same type and capacity as the crane they operated previously (
To determine the annual amount used in calculations for the second scenario (the extension to 2018), OSHA examines the costs in CY 2017 because that is the first year with certification costs. All numbers are the same, just shifted forward a year, so the total cost for having all crane operators certified in CY 2018 is $47,436,368 (in 2018 dollars).
The ultimate goal of this analysis is to determine the annualized cost differential between scenario 1 (the status quo) and scenario 2 (the extensions of the certification date and the employer assessment duty), so the final part of this PEA compares the yearly assessment and certification costs employers will incur under the two scenarios. Because the assessment and certification costs change across years under each scenario, OSHA must compare the cost differential in each year separately to determine the annual cost savings for each year attributable to scenario 2. OSHA calculated the present value of each year's differential, which provides a consistent basis for comparing the cost differentials over the extended compliance period. OSHA then annualized the present value of each differential to identify an annual amount that accounts for the discounted costs over this period. Table 1 below summarizes these calculations.
Table 1 shows that assessment and certification costs are just shifted out another year. As noted earlier, OSHA estimated the overall cost differential between these two scenarios by calculating the difference in total (assessment and certification) costs each year across the two scenarios. The net employer cost savings in current dollars attributable to adopting the second scenario are, for each certification year: 2017, $18.2 million; 2018, $8.7 million; 2019-2021, $0; 2022, − $7.5 million.
OSHA next determined the present value of these cost differentials between the two scenarios. OSHA calculated the present value of future costs using two interest rates assumptions, 3 percent and 7 percent, which follow the OMB guidelines specified by Circular A-4. At an interest rate of 3 percent, the present value of the cost differentials for CY 2017 onwards results in an estimated savings of $20.2 million ($21.3 million using the 7 percent rate). Finally, annualizing the present value over five years results in an annualized cost differential (
The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost in the Preliminary Economic Analysis (PEA) for this rule. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of
If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, the overhead costs would increase cost savings from $4.4 million to $4.5 million at a discount rate of 3 percent, an increase of 1.8 percent, and would increase cost savings from $5.2 million to $5.3 million at a discount rate of 7 percent, an increase of 1.9 percent.
Most employers will have savings resulting from the one-year extension, particularly employers that planned to pay for operator certification in the year before the existing 2017 deadline. The only entities likely to see a net cost will be entities that planned to hire an operator with compliant certification after November 10, 2017. Without the one-year extension, these entities will have no separate assessment duty, but under the one-year extension they will have the expense involved in assessing operator competency. As noted above, however, OSHA estimated the maximum cost for such an assessment (for operators with no certification) to be $317.08 per certified operator.
Small businesses will, by definition, have few operators, and OSHA believes the $317.08 cost will be well below 1% of revenues, and well below 5% of profits, in any industry sector using cranes. OSHA does not consider such small amounts to represent a significant impact on small businesses in any industry sector. Hence, OSHA certifies this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
When OSHA issued the final rule on August 9, 2010, it submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) titled
This proposed rule contains no collection of information needing OMB approval. OSHA welcomes commenters to submit their comments on this determination to the rulemaking docket (OSHA-2007-0066), along with their other comments on the proposed rule. For instructions on submitting these comments to the docket, see the sections of this
OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves it under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any actions that would restrict state policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of state law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Federal agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651
OSHA previously concluded from its analysis that promulgation of subpart CC complies with Executive Order 13132 (75 FR 48128-29). In states without an OSHA-approved State Plan, any standard developed from this proposed rule would limit state policy options in the same manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. For State Plan States, Section 18 of the OSH Act, as noted in the previous paragraph, permits State-Plan States to develop and enforce their own crane standards provided these requirements are at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the requirements specified in this proposal.
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must amend their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary,
The proposed amendments to OSHA's crane standard preserve the status quo and would not impose any new requirements on employers. Accordingly, State Plans would not have to amend their standards to delay the effective date of their operator certification requirements, but they may do so if they so choose. However, if they choose to delay the effective date of their certification requirements, they also would need to include a corresponding extension of the employer duty to assess and train operators that is equivalent to § 1427(k)(2).
When OSHA issued the final rule for cranes and derricks in construction, it reviewed the rule according to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501
As discussed above in Section IV.A (Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis) of this preamble, this proposed extension does not impose any costs on private-sector employers beyond those costs already identified in the final rule for cranes and derricks in construction and the 2014 extension. Because OSHA reviewed the total costs of this final rule under the UMRA, no further review of those costs is necessary. Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, OSHA certifies that this proposed rule does not mandate that state, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year.
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249) and determined that it does not have “tribal implications” as defined in that order. As proposed, the rule does not have substantial direct effects 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.
Under 29 CFR parts 1911 and 1912, OSHA must consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH or Committee), established pursuant to Section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701
On June 20, 2017, ACCSH unanimously recommended that OSHA delay, for one additional year until November 10, 2018, the compliance date for the crane operator certification and extend the employer duty for the same period. [Include citation to ACCSH docket, OSHA-2017-0007-####]
Consistent with EO 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has estimated the annualized cost savings over 10 years for this proposed rule to range from $4.4 million to $5.2 million, depending on the discount rate. This proposed rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651
In addition to materially reducing a significant risk, a safety standard must be technologically feasible. See
Construction industry, Cranes, Derricks, Occupational safety and health, Safety.
For the reasons stated in the preamble of this proposed rule, OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR part 1926 as follows:
40 U.S.C. 3701
(k)
(2) When § 1926.1427(a)(1) is not applicable, all of the requirements in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section apply until November 10, 2018.
(i) The employer must ensure that operators of equipment covered by this standard are competent to operate the equipment safely.
(ii) When an employee assigned to operate machinery does not have the required knowledge or ability to operate the equipment safely, the employer must train that employee prior to operating the equipment. The employer must ensure that each operator is evaluated to confirm that he/she understands the information provided in the training.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Intent to establish negotiated rulemaking committees.
We announce our intention to establish two negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations for the Federal Student Aid programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The committees will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations. We request nominations for individual negotiators who represent key stakeholder constituencies for the issues to be negotiated to serve on the committees, and we set a schedule for committee meetings. We also announce the creation of a subcommittee, and request nominations for individuals with pertinent expertise to participate on the subcommittee.
We must receive your nominations for negotiators to serve on the committees on or before September 29, 2017. The dates, times, and locations of the committee meetings are set out in the
Please send your nominations for negotiators to Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6C111, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 203-9155 or by email:
For information about the content of this document, including information about the negotiated rulemaking process or the nomination submission process, contact: Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Room 6C111, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 203-9155 or by email:
For information about negotiated rulemaking in general, see
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On June 16, 2017, we published a document in the
After considering the information received at the public hearings and the written comments, we have decided to establish the following two negotiating committees:
We list the specific topics the committees are likely to address under
We intend to select negotiators for the committees who represent the interests significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiations. In so doing, we will follow the requirement in section 492(b)(1) of the HEA that the individuals selected must have demonstrated expertise or experience in the relevant topics proposed for negotiations. We will also select individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA. Our goal is to establish committees that will allow significantly affected parties to be represented while keeping the committee size manageable.
We generally select a primary and alternate negotiator for each constituency represented on a committee. The primary negotiator participates for the purpose of determining consensus. The alternate participates for the purpose of determining consensus in the absence of the primary. Either the primary or the alternate may speak during the negotiations.
A committee may create subgroups on particular topics that may involve individuals who are not members of the committee. In addition, individuals who are not selected as members of the committee will be able to observe the committee meetings, will have access to the individuals representing their constituencies, and may be able to participate in informal working groups on various issues between the meetings.
The topics the committees are likely to address are:
1. Revisions to the regulations on borrower defenses to repayment of Federal student loans and other matters:
• Borrower Defense (34 CFR 685.206);
• Misrepresentation (34 CFR 668 subpart F);
• Program Participation Agreement (34 CFR 668.14(b));
• Closed School Discharge (34 CFR 682.402, 34 CFR 685.214);
• False Certification (34 CFR 685.215);
• Financial Responsibility and Administrative Capability (34 CFR 668 subpart L, 34 CFR 668.16); and
• Arbitration and class action lawsuits.
2. Revisions to regulations that will address whether and to what extent guaranty agencies may charge collection
As part of the negotiated rulemaking process, we are forming a Financial Responsibility Subcommittee for Committee 1 to have preliminary discussions of whether or how the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) recent changes to the accounting standards for financial reporting (see FASB Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2016-14 “Presentation of Financial Statement of Not-for-Profit Entities” at
• For the Primary Reserve Ratio: (1) Changes to the definition of “expendable net assets” in the numerator to conform to new terminology; (2) changes to the definition of “total expenses” in the denominator to conform to new terminology; and (3) clarification of the treatment of endowment losses, terms of endowments, retirement liabilities, long-term debt, and construction-in-progress.
• For the Equity Ratio, changes to the definition of “modified net assets” in the numerator to conform to new terminology.
• For the Net Income Ratio: (1) Changes to the definition of “change in unrestricted net assets” in the numerator to conform to new terminology; (2) the addition of losses from underwater endowments to the numerator to reflect changes in treatment; (3) changes to the definition of “total unrestricted revenue” in the denominator to conform to new terminology; (4) clarification of the treatment of other investment and pension trust fund losses; and (5) changes to the treatment of leases.
Subcommittees are formed to address specified issues and to make recommendations to the committee. Subcommittees are not authorized to make decisions for the committee. The Financial Responsibility Subcommittee may be comprised of some Committee 1 members (negotiators) as well as individuals who are not committee members, but who have expertise that will be helpful in developing proposed regulations. Therefore, in addition to asking for nominations for individual negotiators who represent key stakeholder constituencies for the issues to be negotiated to serve on this committee (see
Revisions to the gainful employment regulations in 34 CFR part 668, subpart Q, including, but not limited to, the debt-to-earnings rates measure, sanctions, and reporting and disclosure of information, as well as related reporting and disclosure regulations in 34 CFR 668.41.
Topics for both committees may be added or removed as the process continues.
We have identified the following constituencies as having interests that are significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiations. The Department plans to seat as negotiators individuals from organizations or groups representing these constituencies.
• Students and former students.
• Consumer advocacy organizations.
• Legal assistance organizations that represent students and former students.
• Groups representing U.S. military service member or veteran Federal student loan borrowers.
• Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.
• General counsels/attorneys and compliance officers at postsecondary institutions to address issues related to establishing a process for reviewing borrower defense claims and determining institutional liabilities associated with such claims, as well as administrative repayment liabilities for this topic through program reviews and audit determinations under the Department's regulations.
• Chief financial officers and experienced business officers at postsecondary institutions to address issues such as institutional financing and liability, as opposed to student billing.
• State attorneys general and other appropriate State officials.
• State higher education executive officers.
• Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.
• Two-year public institutions of higher education.
• Four-year public institutions of higher education.
• Private, nonprofit institutions of higher education.
• Private, for-profit institutions of higher education with an enrollment of 450 students or less.
• Private, for-profit institutions of higher education with an enrollment of 451 students or more.
• FFEL Program lenders and loan servicers.
• FFEL Program guaranty agencies and guaranty agency servicers (including collection agencies).
• Accrediting agencies.
• Students and former students.
• Consumer advocacy organizations.
• Legal assistance organizations that represent students and former students.
• Groups representing U.S. military service member or veteran Federal student loan borrowers.
• Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.
• General counsels/attorneys and compliance officers at postsecondary institutions.
• Chief financial officers and experienced business officers at postsecondary institutions.
• State attorneys general and other appropriate State officials.
• State higher education executive officers.
• Business and industry (for example, labor economists or data experts).
• Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title III, parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III of the HEA.
• Two-year public institutions of higher education.
• Four-year public institutions of higher education.
• Private, nonprofit institutions of higher education.
• Private, for-profit institutions of higher education with an enrollment of 450 students or less.
• Private, for-profit institutions of higher education with an enrollment of 451 students or more.
• Accrediting agencies.
The goal of each committee is to develop proposed regulations that reflect a final consensus of the committee. Consensus means that there is no dissent by any member of a negotiating committee, including the committee member representing the Department. An individual selected as a negotiator is expected to represent the interests of his or her organization or group and participate in the negotiations in a manner consistent with the goal of developing proposed regulations on which the committee will reach consensus. If consensus is reached, all members of the organization or group represented by a negotiator are bound by the consensus and are prohibited from commenting negatively on the resulting proposed regulations. The Department will not consider any such negative comments on the proposed regulations that are submitted by members of such an organization or group.
The Department plans to select individuals from organizations or groups with expertise in both financial accounting standards and the Department's financial responsibility standards for institutions for participation on the Financial Responsibility Subcommittee, which is part of Committee 1. Nominations must include evidence of the nominee's specific knowledge in these areas. Such individuals from organizations or groups may include, but are not limited to, representatives of:
• Private, nonprofit institutions of higher education, with knowledge of the accounting standards and title IV financial responsibility requirements for the private, nonprofit sector.
• Private, for-profit institutions of higher education, with knowledge of the accounting standards and title IV financial responsibility requirements for the for-profit sector.
• Accrediting agencies.
• Chief financial officers (to include experienced business officers and bursars) at postsecondary institutions.
• Associations or organizations that provide accounting guidance to auditors and institutions.
• Certified public accountants or firms who conduct financial statement audits of title IV participating institutions.
• The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), with expertise in the applicable financial accounting and reporting standards set by FASB.
Nominations should include:
• The committee (Borrower Defenses and Financial Responsibility or Gainful Employment) or subcommittee (Financial Responsibility) for which the nominee is nominated.
• The name of the nominee, the organization or group the nominee represents, and a description of the interests that the nominee represents.
• Evidence of the nominee's expertise or experience in the topics proposed for negotiations.
• Evidence of support from individuals or groups within the constituency or area of expertise that the nominee will represent.
• The nominee's commitment that he or she will actively participate in good faith in the development of the proposed regulations.
• The nominee's contact information, including address, phone number, and email address.
For a better understanding of the negotiated rulemaking process, prior to committing to participate, nominees should review
Nominees will be notified whether or not they have been selected as soon as the Department's review process is completed.
Committee 1—Borrower Defenses and Financial Responsibility Issues committee will meet for three sessions on the following dates:
Sessions will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The November committee meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn Washington Capitol at: 550 C Street SW., Congressional II Room, Washington, DC 20024.
The January committee meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Education at: Union Center Plaza (UCP) Center, 830 First Street NE., Lobby Level, Washington, DC 20002.
The February committee meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Education at: Barnard Auditorium, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20202.
The committee meetings are open to the public.
The Financial Responsibility Subcommittee will meet on the following dates:
Meetings will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The subcommittee meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Education: Training and Development Center, First floor, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20202.
The November 16-17, 2016, meeting will be held in room 1W103. The January 4-5, 2017, meeting will be held in room 1W128. The January 29-30, 2017, meeting will be held in Room 1W103. Arrangements will be made to allow members to attend remotely.
The subcommittee meetings are not open to the public.
Committee 2—Gainful Employment Issues committee will meet for three sessions on the following dates:
Sessions will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The December committee meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Education at: Union Center Plaza (UCP) Learning Center, 830 First Street NE., Lobby Level, Washington, DC 20002.
The February committee meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Education: Barnard Auditorium, 400 Maryland Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20202.
The March committee meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of Education at: Potomac Center Plaza Auditorium, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202.
The committee meetings are open to the public.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve an October 15, 2015 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This revision addresses the interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good neighbor provision, with respect to the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before September 29, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0151 at
Donald Dahl, (617) 918-1657; or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for NO
On January 2, 2013 and on June 27, 2014, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) submitted proposed revisions to its SIP, certifying that its SIP meets most of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with respect to the 2010 primary NO
Rhode Island presented several facts in its SIP submission on the effect of SO
Similarly, the SIP submission notes SO
This proposed approval of Rhode Island's October 15, 2015 SIP submission addressing interstate transport of SO
Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO
Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport of SO
First, EPA evaluated the universe of sources in Rhode Island likely to be responsible for SO
Second, EPA selected a spatial scale—essentially, the geographic area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably expect SO
Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this rulemaking regarding SO
Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3 (
EPA took a different approach that is more appropriate for NO
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its October 15, 2015 SIP submission and EPA's assessment of the information discussed at length below, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions activity within Rhode Island will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor will they interfere with maintenance of, the 2010 primary SO
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).
EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13, 2013 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” did not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
For other pollutants such as Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example, EPA noted in an October 14, 2011 memorandum titled, “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,”
This notice describes EPA's evaluation of Rhode Island's conclusion contained in the State's October 15, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission that the State satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO
As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of any source or other type of emissions activity in one state and how emissions from these sources or activities may impact air quality in other states. As the analysis contained in Rhode Island's submittal demonstrates, a state's obligation to demonstrate that it is meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) cannot be based solely on the fact that there are no DRR sources within the state. Therefore, EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions activities in Rhode Island are likely to impact downwind air quality with respect to the SO
The EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority of SO
The definitions contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 are helpful indicators of the travel and formation phenomenon for SO
The largest category of SO
Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary SO
This notice also describes EPA's evaluation of Rhode Island's conclusion contained in the State's October 15, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission that the State satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO
EPA and the State's approach to assessing impacts from the transportation of NO
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of a NAAQS in another state. In order to evaluate Rhode Island's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated the State's SIP submission in relation to the following four factors: (1) SO
As noted above, EPA's approach for addressing the interstate transport of SO
According to the 2014 NEI data, the highest SO
As demonstrated by the data in Table 2, statewide SO
Data
As shown in Table 3 above, the DVs for the two monitoring sites for all years between 2012 and 2016 have decreased between each of the 3-year blocks shown in the table. The highest valid DV in Rhode Island for 2014-2016 is 7 ppb, which is 83% below the NAAQS.
While the monitor (AQS Site ID 44-007-0012) closest to Rhode Island Hospital (the largest SO
However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that Rhode Island has met its interstate transport obligation. While the decreasing DVs and their associated spatial scales may help to assist in characterizing air quality within Rhode Island, prong 1 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses the effects that sources within Rhode Island have on air quality in neighboring states. Therefore, an evaluation and analysis of SO
As previously discussed, EPA's definitions of spatial scales for SO
There are no ambient SO
The State has various regulations to ensure that SO
In addition, for the purposes of ensuring that SO
Finally, in addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA observes that facilities in Rhode Island are also subject to the federal requirements contained in regulations such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. This regulation reduces acid gases, which includes reductions in SO
As discussed in more detail above, EPA has considered the following information in evaluating the State's satisfaction of the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
(1) EPA has not identified any current air quality problems in neighboring states (
(2) Past and projected future SO
(3) Current SIP provisions and other federal programs will further reduce SO
Based on the analysis provided by the State in its October 15, 2015 SIP submission and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA proposes to find that any sources or other emissions activity within the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 primary SO
Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in another state. Given the continuing trend of decreased emissions from sources within Rhode Island, EPA believes that reasonable criteria to ensure that sources or other emissions activity originating within Rhode Island do not interfere with its neighboring states' ability to maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether these decreases in emissions can be maintained over time.
As shown in Table 2, above, state-wide SO
Utilizing United States census data and EPA emission factors, future SO
While EPA does not currently have a way to quantify the impacts of multiple small sources of SO
As shown in Table 2, above, statewide SO
EPA expects SO
Lastly, any future large sources of SO
It is also worth noting air quality trends for concentrations of SO
Based on each of factors contained in the prong 2 maintenance analysis above, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions activity within the State will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 primary SO
Rhode Island's October 15, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission addressing the good neighbor requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) notes that on January 20, 2012, EPA designated all areas of the country as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the 2010 primary NO
As shown in Table 6, the DVs are significantly less than the national ambient air quality standard for NO
Table 7 contains the highest NO
As shown by the chart above, the highest NO
Lastly, APCR No. 27 “Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,” among other regulations, contains NO
EPA also notes that NO
In light of the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve Rhode Island's October 15, 2015 infrastructure submittal for the 2010 primary SO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen oxides.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of availability; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 46 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 46 would establish the rebuilding time period for the Gulf gray triggerfish stock. Amendment 46 would also revise the recreational fixed closed season, recreational bag limit, recreational minimum size limit, and commercial trip limit. The purpose of Amendment 46 is to implement management measures to assist in rebuilding the Gulf gray triggerfish stock and to achieve optimum yield (OY).
Written comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0080” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 46, which includes an environmental assessment, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at:
Lauren Waters, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305; 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 an FMP or amendment, publish an announcement in the
The FMP being revised by Amendment 46 was prepared by the Council and implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from Federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems. To further this goal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires fishery managers to rebuild overfished stocks.
The first Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) benchmark stock assessment for gray triggerfish was completed in 2006 (SEDAR 9). SEDAR 9 indicated that the gray triggerfish stock was both overfished and possibly undergoing overfishing. Subsequently, Amendment 30A to the FMP established a gray triggerfish rebuilding plan beginning in the 2008 fishing year (73 FR 3813; July 3, 2008). In 2011, a SEDAR 9 update stock assessment for gray triggerfish determined that the gray triggerfish stock was still overfished and was undergoing overfishing, and had not made adequate progress toward rebuilding. As a result of the SEDAR 9 update and to end overfishing, the final rule for Amendment 37 to the FMP revised the gray triggerfish commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACLs) and annual catch targets (ACTs), revised the gray triggerfish recreational sector accountability measures (AMs), revised the gray triggerfish recreational bag limit, established a commercial trip limit for gray triggerfish, and established a fixed closed season for the gray triggerfish commercial and recreational sectors (78 FR 27084; May 5, 2013). Additionally, Amendment 37 revised the rebuilding plan and projected that the stock would be rebuilt in 5 years, or by the end of 2017 fishing year.
Since implementation of Amendment 37 in 2013, commercial harvest has not exceeded the commercial ACL, while the recreational sector has exceeded the recreational ACL or adjusted recreational ACL (that resulted from a ACL overage adjustment) in the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 fishing years. The most recent stock assessment for gray triggerfish was completed and reviewed by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) in October 2015 (SEDAR 43). SEDAR 43 indicated that the gray triggerfish stock was not experiencing overfishing but remained overfished and would not be rebuilt by
Amendment 46 includes measures to set a rebuilding time period, revise the recreational fixed closed season, revise the recreational bag limit, revise the recreational minimum size limit, and revise the commercial trip limit. Additionally, Amendment 46 considers alternatives to the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs.
Amendment 37 established a 5-year rebuilding time period, expiring in 2017, and the current gray triggerfish commercial and recreational ACTs and ACLs. The current commercial ACT is 60,900 lb (27,624 kg), round weight, and the commercial ACL is 64,100 lb (29,075 kg), round weight. The current recreational ACT is 217,000 lb (98,475 kg), round weight, and the recreational ACL is 242,200 lb (109,406 kg), round weight. Amendment 46 would establish a new rebuilding time period for the Gulf gray triggerfish stock as a result of the stock status determined through SEDAR 43, and maintain the current commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs.
The Council's SSC reviewed SEDAR 43 and recommended alternative rebuilding time periods of 8, 9, or 10 years and the acceptable biological catch (ABC) yield streams for each period. There is a 60 percent probability of rebuilding the stock within these time periods if landings are appropriately constrained to the recommended catch levels. In Amendment 46, the Council considered these rebuilding time periods and their associated catch levels, as well as a 6-year period, which would be the time needed to rebuild the stock in the absence of fishing mortality. The Council determined that the 9-year rebuilding time period was as short as possible, taking into account the status and biology of the stock and the needs of the associated fishing communities. Although the ABC recommendation associated with the 9-year time period allowed for an increase in harvest, the Council chose to adopt a more conservative approach and maintain the current commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs for gray triggerfish that were set through the final rule for Amendment 37 (78 FR 27084, May 9, 2013).
The current recreational seasonal closure for gray triggerfish in the Gulf is from June 1 through July 31, and was established in Amendment 37 to protect gray triggerfish during the peak spawning season and help constrain landings to the recreational ACT (78 FR 27084; May 5, 2013). However, as explained above, recreational landings have exceeded the recreational ACL or adjusted ACL the last four years. Amendment 46 would establish an additional recreational fixed closed season for gray triggerfish from January 1 through the end of February, which is expected to reduce recreational landings and help rebuild the stock within the rebuilding time period established in Amendment 46.
The current recreational bag limit was set in Amendment 37 and is a 2-fish per person per day limit within the overall 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit. Amendment 46 would reduce the recreational gray triggerfish bag limit to 1 fish per person per day within the 20-fish aggregate reef fish bag limit.
As described in Amendment 46, from 2013 through 2015, approximately 10 percent of recreational trips with reef fish landings harvested 2 gray triggerfish within the 20-fish aggregate bag limit. NMFS expects the proposed change to the bag limit to reduce recreational landings by 15 percent, which will help constrain harvest to the recreational ACT to allow the sector to remain open through the end of the fishing year.
The current recreational minimum size limit for gray triggerfish is 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL, and was established in Amendment 30A to the FMP (73 FR 38139, July 3, 2008). Amendment 46 would increase the minimum size limit to 15 inches (38.1 cm), FL.
Increasing the recreational minimum size limit is expected to increase the gray triggerfish spawning potential by maintaining larger-sized fish, which are more fecund, in the stock, and is expected to help slow recreational harvest.
The current commercial trip limit is 12 fish per trip, and was established in Amendment 37 to constrain commercial harvest to the commercial ACT and avoid an in-season closure (78 FR 27084, May 5, 2013). Amendment 46 would increase the commercial trip limit to 16 fish per trip.
As described in Amendment 46, since implementation of the 12-fish commercial trip limit in 2013, commercial landings have been consistently below the commercial ACT. Analysis of commercial trips demonstrated that 80 percent of trips caught 10 gray triggerfish or less. This indicates that gray triggerfish is primarily a non-target species by the commercial sector and that increasing the commercial trip limit would likely result in only a small change in the weight projected to be landed during a fishing year. However, increasing the commercial trip limit would allow those fishermen who encounter the species the opportunity to harvest more fish. This would help achieve OY for the stock while continuing to constrain commercial landings to the commercial ACT.
A proposed rule that would implement Amendment 46 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 46 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments on Amendment 46 must be received by October 30, 2017. Comments received during the respective comment periods, whether specifically directed to Amendment 46 or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 46 and will be addressed in the final rule.
All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 46 or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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 29, 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.
Some of the information collection activities include: Agreements; permits; application and space reservation requests; inspections; registers; declarations of importation; requests for hearings; daily logs; additional requirements; application for permits; export health certificates; letters; written notices; daily record of horse activities; written requests; opportunities to present views; reporting; applications for approval of facilities; certifications; arrival notices; on-hold shipment notifications; reports; affidavits; animal identification; written plans; checklists; specimen submissions; emergency action notifications; refusal of entry and order to dispose of fish; premises information; recordkeeping; and application of seals. APHIS needs this information to help ensure that these imports do not introduce foreign animal diseases into the United States.
On April 12, 2017, Pfizer, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within Subzone 43E, in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On June 29, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Stockton, grantee of FTZ 231, requesting expanded subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 231, on behalf of 5.11, Inc., in Manteca, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On April 12, 2017, Valeo North America, Inc. d/b/a Valeo Compressor North America, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within FTZ 39—Site 1, in Dallas, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
The Georgia Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 26, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Nisshinbo Automotive Manufacturing, Inc. (Nisshinbo), located in Covington, Georgia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 10, 2017.
The Nisshinbo facility is located within Site 33 of FTZ 26. The facility will be used to assemble and produce automotive brake pads. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Nisshinbo from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Nisshinbo would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Brake linings and pads, and brake disc pads (duty rate ranging from free to 2.5%). Nisshinbo would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Natural graphite powder; natural graphite; kaolinite clay; magnesium oxide; slaked lime; mica powder; vermiculite; synthetic zeolite; antimony trisulfide; carbon black; carbon fiber; crystalline silica, quartz; spherical silica powder; zinc powder; white fused alumina; aluminum oxide; black iron oxide; zirconium oxide; antimony trioxide; calcium fluoride; zinc sulfide; barium sulfate; calcium carbonate; rubber with calcium carbonate; sepiolite; calcium silicate; potassium titanate; salts of inorganic acids; calcium hydride; dicumyl peroxide with calcium carbonate; stearic acid from saturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids (zinc stearic acid); paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based on synthetic polymers in a non-aqueous medium hematite; artificial graphite plates, rods, powder and other forms for manufacturing pitch cokes; artificial graphite powder; silicone rubber coated cashew particle; phenolic resin; synthetic-amorphous silica; black silicon carbide; silicone rubber; cashew dust from cashew nut shell; friction dust from manufacturing grinding process; cellulose fiber; acrylonitrile/butadiene; tire rubber crumb—ground tires through a special milling procedure; rubber powder; styrene-butadiene rubber; rock wool fiber; brake linings (not mounted); ceramic fiber; microblast of other mineral substances; glass chopped strand; chopped stainless steel wire fiber; copper powder; copper fiber; bronze fiber; aluminum grain; alumina powder; atomized tin powder; tin sulfide powder; zirconium silicate; zircon flour; and, backing plates/disc pads (duty rate ranges from free to 6.5%).
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 10, 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 Juanita Chen at
On April 17, 2017, DPT Laboratories, Ltd., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board within Subzone 80F, in San Antonio, Texas.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On June 29, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Northwest Tennessee Regional Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 283, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 283, on behalf of MTD Consumer Group Inc., in Martin, Tennessee.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration Department of Commerce.
August 30, 2017.
Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3692.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the periods January 1, 2017, through March 31, 2017.
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
August 30, 2017.
Mary Kolberg at (202) 482-1785, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On July 12, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a countervailing duty investigation on ripe olives from Spain.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner
On August 7, 2017, the petitioner submitted a timely request that we postpone the preliminary CVD determination.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice; announcement of working group teleconference.
The NIST Cloud Computing Program (NCCP) announces the reconstitution of its Federated Cloud Public Working Group. The Working Group's activities will resume and initiate work to develop a vocabulary of terms to support federated cloud and federated cloud environments, as well as a conceptual architecture for federated cloud. Participation in the
An initial teleconference will take place on Thursday, August 31, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The goal for completion of the work is June 30, 2018.
Robert Bohn, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number 301-975-4731, email:
The NCCP announces the reconstitution of its Federated Cloud Public Working Group (Working Group). The Working Group was formed to address Requirement #5 of NIST's US Government Cloud Computing Technology Roadmap (NIST SP 500-293) (Cloud Computing Roadmap), “Frameworks to Support Federated Community Clouds.” This requirement calls for “frameworks to support seamless implementation of federated community cloud environments.” The Working Group's activities will resume and initiate work to try and fully understand and describe the elements of federated cloud computing. Assorted topics include developing and gaining consensus on a common federated cloud computing vocabulary, as well as developing an underlying conceptual model of what federated cloud computing is, its major components, and users/stakeholders.
An initial teleconference will take place on Thursday, August 31, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The dial-in number is 1-877-953-0273, and the passcode is 456-4979. Members of the public who wish to participate in the teleconference should provide their name and email address to
The Cloud Computing Roadmap is being used industry-wide to advance the rapid adoption of cloud computing. Two of the 10 requirements (numbers 5 and 8) in the Cloud Computing Roadmap point to the next generation of cloud computing which will be focused on the concept of federated clouds. Federated clouds represent a future where there is seamless integration between multiple cloud service providers. Fulfilling this vision of the future of cloud computing will require a foundational effort to understand all the technological and standards-based obstacles that will need to be addressed to build the necessary underlying architecture.
The scope of the project is to fully understand and describe the elements of federated cloud computing. This will involve developing and gaining consensus on a common federated cloud computing vocabulary, as well as developing an underlying conceptual model of what federated cloud computing is, its major components, and users/stakeholders. The Working Group will then use that conceptual model to map out an implementation strategy including a gap analysis to identify the missing technologies and standards needed to cultivate a seamless system of systems. The anticipated results are:
• Federated Cloud Computing Vocabulary;
• Conceptual Model of Federated Clouds; and
• Technology Gap Analysis.
The Working Group will also investigate and identify the needed technologies, tools, and standards to enable these environments. They will use material from NIST's Cloud Computing Reference Architecture (NIST SP 500-292) and materials located at the group's public twiki site:
The Working Group will work in a coordinated effort with the IEEE ICWG/2302 WG—Intercloud Working Group to produce an implementation of this reference material and create a compliant technical standard. A list of NIST's Cloud Computing Working Groups can be found at
15 U.S.C. 272(b)(3) & (c)(12).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice; request for information.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) established the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science in 2013 as part of a larger effort to strengthen forensic science in the United States. NIST has primary responsibility to support the OSAC and has publicly announced its intention to transition the administration of the OSAC to another host within five to ten years. NIST made a commitment to the forensic science community (community) that OSAC 2.0 will ensure the continued scientific integrity and stability of the organization. NIST publishes this notice to request information for consideration in the development of a comprehensive transition plan for the OSAC that meets the needs of the community and ensures that transition is conducted in a manner that safeguards the efficiency and effectiveness of the OSAC.
NIST will accept written responses to this request for information until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 30, 2017.
Responses to this request for information must be made electronically through the
All responses, including attachments, will be posted to the docket at
Ms. Grace Hao, (301) 975-4752 or
In February 2013, DOJ and NIST announced a partnership that included the formation of the OSAC. As is stated in the OSAC Charter, the purpose of the OSAC is to strengthen the Nation's use of forensic science by: Providing technical leadership necessary to facilitate the development and promulgation of consensus-based documentary standards and guidelines for forensic science; promoting standards and guidelines that are fit-for-purpose and based on sound scientific principles; promoting the use of OSAC standards and guidelines by accreditation and certification bodies; and establishing and maintaining working relationships with other similar organizations. The OSAC Charter and Bylaws are available online at:
These purposes of the OSAC are achieved through the OSAC Registry, the repository for all standards and guidelines. A standard or guideline is posted on the OSAC Registry only after the validity of any methods it contains has been assessed by forensic practitioners, academic researchers, measurement scientists, and statisticians through a consensus development process that allows participation and comment from all relevant stakeholders. NIST retains ultimate authority over posting of standards and responsibility for support of the OSAC Registry.
The OSAC Charter states that the aims of the OSAC are to: Populate the OSAC Registry; develop and maintain the Principles of Professional Practice; compile and update the forensic science catalog of standards and related documents; maintain Priority Action Plan documents on OSAC strategic objectives and associated goals and intended actions; promote and improve the communication, dissemination and use of forensic science standards, accreditation, and personnel competencies; encourage forensic science service providers in the United States to implement guidelines and standards (
Under the OSAC Charter, NIST has primary responsibility to coordinate development of a quality infrastructure for forensic science standards development and to support the OSAC. NIST envisioned the OSAC as a multi-level organization consisting of five Scientific Area Committees (SACs) that report to a Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB). Each of the five SACs oversees discipline-specific subcommittees. In addition, there are three Resource Committees that provide input to the FSSB, SACs, and SAC Subcommittees. DOJ funds the OSAC through appropriated funds that are transferred to NIST. While DOJ personnel participate as members of OSAC committees and subcommittees, DOJ itself does not review or approve OSAC standards prior to posting on the Registry.
Both NIST and DOJ recognized from the outset that the OSAC would be realigned over time to ensure continuous improvement and better realize its purpose and objectives. NIST has publicly announced its intention to transition the administration of the OSAC to another host within five to ten years. NIST's goals in this transition process are to establish the next generation of OSAC (OSAC 2.0) that strengthens forensics science, follows American National Standards Institute principles for standards development, and promotes a collaborative process that actively involves practitioners and researchers. NIST notes that, as a non-regulatory research and development agency, it does not contemplate undertaking any a regulatory or quasi-regulatory function in connection with OSAC 2.0. NIST is open to maintaining elements of the current OSAC structure, to modifications to the structure, as well as to substantially different structural concepts, including several examples of concepts at:
NIST is now in the process of developing a process for the transition of OSAC 1.0 to an OSAC 2.0 structure that will accomplish these goals and safeguard the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. To ensure that the transition plan is comprehensive and meets the needs of the community, NIST, in collaboration with DOJ, requests from the public, comments on the questions below, which will inform the approach to an OSAC 2.0 in the following six areas: (A) Purpose, (B) oversight and independence, (C) work product and aims, (D) structure, (E) participation, and (F) funding.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
Response to this request for information (RFI) is voluntary, and comments are not limited to the specific questions posed. Respondents need not reply to all questions; however, it is requested that they clearly indicate the letter of each question to which they are responding. All responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically through
All responses received will be posted on
15 U.S.C. 272(b)(10).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Adam Bailey, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, (727) 824-5303, or
This request is for an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection under the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Control Number 0648-0551, Southeast Region IFQ (individual fishing quota) Programs. The NMFS Southeast Regional Office manages three commercial IFQ and individual transferable quota (ITQ) programs in the Southeast Region under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
This collection of information tracks the transfer and use of IFQ and ITQ shares, and IFQ allocation and landings necessary to operate, administer, and review management of the IFQ and ITQ programs. Regulations for the IFQ and ITQ programs are located at 50 CFR part 622.
The NMFS Southeast Regional Office also proposes to revise parts of the information collection approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0551 to account for updates to burden time and cost estimates, as well as administrative updates to online and paper forms. NMFS intends the revisions would make instructions and data collection requirements clearer and easier to understand, resulting in more accurate and efficient information available for use by fishery managers.
Information for the Gulf red snapper, and grouper and tilefish IFQ programs is collected electronically via a web-based system, through satellite-linked vessel monitoring systems, through a 24-hour call line, and with paper form submission for landing corrections, closing an account, and account applications, as well as landing transactions under catastrophic circumstances.
The share transfer process in the wreckfish ITQ program requires the signatures of witnesses on paper forms. The ITQ program remains paper based until the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS consider whether to implement an electronic system.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect data from users of the resource.
Regulations at 50 CFR 648.11(g) require observer service providers to comply with specific requirements in order to operate as an approved provider in the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery. Observer service providers must comply with the following requirements: Submit applications for approval as an observer service provider; formally request observer training by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP); submit observer deployment reports and biological samples; give notification of whether a vessel must carry an observer within 24 hours of the vessel owner's notification of a prospective trip; maintain an updated contact list of all observers that includes the observer identification number; observer's name mailing address, email address, phone numbers, homeports or fisheries/trip types assigned, and whether or not the observer is “in service.” The regulations also require observer service providers submit any outreach materials, such as informational pamphlets, payment notification, and descriptions of observer duties as well as all contracts between the service provider and entities requiring observer services for review to NMFS/NEFOP. Observer service providers also have the option to respond to application denials, and submit a rebuttal in response to a pending removal from the list of approved observer providers. These requirements allow NMFS/NEFOP to effectively administer the scallop observer program.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Weather Service (NWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Request for public comments.
The Draft PEA is available for public review and comment for 30 days after posting. It can be accessed at
If you wish to comment on the Draft PEA, please send comments via email to Joe Swaykos, NDBC Chief Scientist, at
Joe Swaykos, National Data Buoy Center, Bldg 3205, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529; phone (228) 688-4766; fax (228)688-1364; email
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Data Buoy Center (NDBC), a part of the National Weather Service (NWS), designs, develops, operates, and maintains a network of moored buoys and coastal stations throughout the world's oceans, seas, and lakes for the purpose of civil earth marine observations. NDBC has prepared a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) to analyze the continued operational activities of its network of moored buoys and coastal stations.
NDBC provides high quality ocean and coastal observations for public safety use in direct support of short range and extended range NWS forecasts, warnings, and watches. NDBC provides essential real-time oceanographic and meteorological observation data to stakeholders in key U.S. Economic Sectors, such as, Trade and Retail (
NDBC operates a network composed of four formal NOAA Observing Systems of Record: (1) Coastal Weather Buoys (CWB); (2) the land-based Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C-MAN); (3) Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Array (TAO) and (4) Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART). Currently, NDBC's network consists of 200 buoys and 46 C-MAN stations that transmit observations and data (
In-situ real-time oceanographic and meteorological observations are critical to a wide variety of users such as federal, state, academic, and private industry stakeholders. These observations add value to a diverse spectrum of civil use applications including severe and routine weather forecasting; improved coastal ocean circulation models; commercial and recreational marine transportation and fishing; and environmental monitoring and research. The societal benefits of ocean observations are interconnected at local, regional, national, and international scales. The
Ocean observations are an indispensable component to measure and monitor our progress towards addressing societal challenges. Among the diverse sources of ocean observations, data buoys provide unique and invaluable information to support critical government functions, such as the protection of life and property. NDBC data are accessed on a daily basis, by millions of national and international stakeholders and assimilated into a myriad products and services.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the San Francisco Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) to incidentally harass, by Level A and Level B harassment, marine mammals during in-water construction activities associated with the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility Project in Alameda, CA.
This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018.
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review and signed a Categorical Exclusion memo in August 2017.
On May 3, 2017, NMFS received a request from WETA for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal in association with the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility Project (Project) in Alameda, California. WETA's request is for take of seven species by Level A and Level B harassment. Neither WETA nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This is the second year of a 2-year project. In-water work associated with the second year of construction is expected to be completed within 22 days. This proposed IHA is for the second phase of construction activities (August 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017). WETA received authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to these same activities for the first phase of construction in 2016 (80 FR 10060; February 25, 2015). In addition, similar construction and pile driving activities in San Francisco Bay have been authorized by NMFS in the past. These projects include construction activities at the San Francisco Ferry Terminal (81 FR 43993, July 6, 2016); Exploratorium (75 FR 66065, October 27, 2010); Pier 36 (77 FR 20361, April 4, 2012); and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (71 FR 26750, May 8, 2006; 72 FR 25748, August 9, 2007; 74 FR 41684, August 18, 2009; 76 FR 7156, February 9, 2011; 78 FR 2371, January 11, 2013; 79 FR 2421, January 14, 2014; and 80 FR 43710, July 23, 2015). This IHA is valid from August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018.
WETA is constructing a Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility to serve as the central San Francisco Bay base for WETA's ferry fleet, Operations Control Center (OCC), and Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The Project will provide maintenance services such as fueling, engine oil changes, concession supply, and light repair work for WETA ferry boats operating in the central San Francisco Bay. In addition, the project will be the location for operational activities of WETA, including day-to-day management and oversight of services, crew, and facilities. In the event of a regional disaster, the facility will also function as an EOC, serving passengers and sustaining water transit service for emergency response and recovery. A detailed description of the planned construction project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to WETA was published in the
There are seven marine mammal species that may inhabit or may likely transit through the waters nearby the project area, and are expected to potentially be taken by the specified activity. These include the Pacific harbor seal (
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in San Francisco Bay near Alameda Point and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected by WETA's project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas, but are not expected to have reasonable potential to be harassed by in-water construction, include extralimital species, which are species that do not normally occur in a given area but for which there are one or more occurrence records that are considered beyond the normal range of the species (
The effects of underwater noise from WETA's pile driving and removal activities for the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are by Level A and Level B harassment, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to vibratory and impact pile driving and removal, and potential permanent threshold shift (PTS) for harbor seals that may transit through the Level A zone to their haulout. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or 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. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
WETA's proposed activities include the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). WETA's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
Pile driving and removal generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
In order to determine reasonable source levels and their associated effects on marine mammals that are likely to result from vibratory or impact pile driving or removal at the Project area, we considered existing measurements from similar physical environments (
The values used to calculate distances at which sound would be expected to exceed the Level A thresholds for impact driving of and 36-inch (in) and 42-in piles include peak values of 210 dB and anticipated SELs for unattenuated impact pile-driving of 183 dB, and peak values of 203 dB and SEL values of 177 for 24-in piles (Caltrans 2015a). Bubble curtains will be used during the installation of these piles, which is expected to reduce noise levels by about 10 dB rms (Caltrans 2015a), which are the values used in Table 3. Vibratory driving source levels include 175 dB RMS for 42-in piles, 170 dB RMS for 36-in piles, 160 dB RMS for 24-in piles, and 150 dB RMS for 14-in H piles (Caltrans 2015a). The inputs for the user spreadsheet from NMFS' Guidance are as follows: For impact driving, 450 strikes per pile with 3 piles per day for 24-in piles, and 600 strikes per pile with 2 piles per day for 36-in and 42-in piles. The total duration for vibratory driving of 14-in, 24-in, 36-in, and 42-in piles were all approximately 10 minutes (0.166666, 0.1708333 hours, 0.16666 hours, and 0.177777 hours, respectively).
Approximately 15 steel piles, 42-in in diameter, will be installed, with approximately 2 installed per day over 8 days. The source level for this pile size during impact driving came from the Caltrans summary table (Caltrans 2015a) for “loudest” values for 36 in piles at approximately 10 m depth.
Approximately 6 steel piles, 36-in in diameter, will be installed, with approximately 2 installed per day over 3 days. The source level for this pile size during impact driving came from the Caltrans summary table (Caltrans 2015a) for “typical” values for 36 in piles at approximately 10 m depth.
Approximately 8 steel piles, 24-in in diameter, will be installed, with approximately 3 installed per day over 3 days. The source level for this pile size during impact driving came from the Caltrans summary table (Caltrans 2015a) for 24 in piles at approximately 5 meter depth. The source level for this pile size during vibratory driving came from the Caltrans table for the Trinidad Pier Reconstruction project (Caltrans 2015a).
Approximately 20 14-in H piles (10 temporary and 10 permanent), with approximately 5 installed or removed per day over 8 days. The source level for this pile size during impact and vibratory driving came from the Caltrans summary table (Caltrans 2015a) for 10 in H piles.
Tables 3 and 4 show the expected underwater sound levels for pile driving activities and the estimated distances to the Level A (Table 3) and Level B (Table 4) thresholds.
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D-modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources (such as WETA's Project), NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths are reported below.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
At-sea densities for marine mammal species have been determined for harbor seals and California sea lions in San Francisco Bay based on marine mammal monitoring by Caltrans for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Project from 2000 to 2015 (Caltrans 2016); all other estimates here are determined by using observational data taken during marine mammal monitoring associated with the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge retrofit project, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB), which has been ongoing for the past 15 years, and anecdotal observational reports from local entities.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
All estimates are conservative and include the following assumptions:
• All pilings installed at each site would have an underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the greatest noise disturbance
• Exposures were based on an estimated total of 22 work days. Each activity ranges in amount of days needed to be completed.
• In the absence of site specific underwater acoustic propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to determine the ZOI.
• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-hour period; and,
• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following calculation:
To account for the increase in California sea lion density due to El Niño, the daily take estimated from the observed density has been increased by a factor of 10 for each day that pile driving or removal occurs.
There are a number of reasons why estimates of potential instances of take may be overestimates of the number of individuals taken, assuming that available density or abundance estimates and estimated ZOI areas are accurate. We assume, in the absence of information supporting a more refined conclusion, that the output of the calculation represents the number of individuals that may be taken by the specified activity. In fact, in the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number represents the number of instances of take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals, with some number of animals being exposed more than once per individual. While pile driving and removal can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving/removal. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative, especially if each take is considered a separate individual animal, and especially for pinnipeds.
Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced at-sea density estimates for Pacific harbor seal of 0.83 animals per square kilometer for the fall season (Caltrans 2016). Since the construction of the new pier that is currently being used as a haul out for harbor seals, there are additional seals that need to be taken into account for the take calculation. The average number of seals that use the haulout at any given time is 15 animals; therefore, we would add an additional 15 seals per day. Using this density and the additional 15 animals per day, the potential average daily take for the areas over which the Level B harassment thresholds may be exceeded are estimated in Table 5.
A total of 467 harbor seal takes are estimated for 2017 (Table 7). Because seals may traverse the Level A zone when going to and from the haul out that is approximately 300 m from the project area, it would not be practicable to shutdown every time. Therefore 18 Level A takes are requested for this species by assuming 1.6 harbor seals per day over 11 days of impact driving of 36-in and 42-in piles may enter the zone (see the
Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing
All California sea lion estimates were multiplied by 10 to account for the increased occurrence of this species due to El Niño. A total of 149 California sea lion takes is estimated for 2017 (Table 7). Level A take is not expected for California sea lion based on area of ensonification and density of the animals in that area.
Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced an estimated at-sea density for northern elephant seal of 0.03 animal per square kilometer (Caltrans 2016). Most sightings of northern elephant seal in San Francisco Bay occur in spring or early summer, and are less likely to occur during the periods of in-water work for this project (June through November). As a result, densities during pile driving and removal for the proposed action would be much lower. Therefore, we estimate that it is possible that a lone northern elephant seal may enter the Level B harassment area once per week during pile driving or removal, for a total of 18 takes in 2017 (Table 7). Level A take of Northern elephant seal is not requested, nor is it authorized because although one animal may approach the large Level B zones, it is not expected that it will continue in the area of ensonification into the Level A zone. Further, if the animal does approach the Level A zone, construction will be shut down.
During the breeding season, the majority of the worldwide population is found on the Pribilof Islands in the southern Bering Sea, with the remaining animals spread throughout the North Pacific Ocean. On the coast of California, small breeding colonies are present at San Miguel Island off southern California, and the Farallon Islands off central California (Carretta
In the last six decades, harbor porpoises were observed outside of San Francisco Bay. The few harbor porpoises that entered were not sighted past central Bay close to the Golden Gate Bridge. In recent years, however, there have been increasingly common observations of harbor porpoises in central, north, and south San Francisco Bay. Porpoise activity inside San Francisco Bay is thought to be related to foraging and mating behaviors (Keener 2011; Duffy 2015). According to observations by the Golden Gate Cetacean Research team as part of their multi-year assessment, over 100 porpoises may be seen at one time entering San Francisco Bay; and over 600 individual animals are documented in a photo-ID database. However, sightings are concentrated in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Angel Island, north of the project area, with lesser numbers sighted south of Alcatraz and west of Treasure Island (Keener 2011). Harbor porpoise generally travel individually or in small groups of two or three (Sekiguchi 1995).
Monitoring of marine mammals in the vicinity of the SFOBB has been ongoing for 15 years; from those data, Caltrans has produced an estimated at-sea density for harbor porpoise of 0.021 animal per square kilometer (Caltrans 2016). However, this estimate would be an overestimate of what would actually be seen in the project area since it is a smaller area than the monitoring area of SFOBB. In order to estimate a more realistic take number, we assume it is possible that a small group of individuals (five harbor porpoises) may enter the Level B harassment area on as many as two days of pile driving or removal, for a total of ten harbor porpoise takes per year (Table 7). It is possible that harbor porpoise may enter the Level A harassment zone for high frequency cetaceans; however, 2 MMOs will be monitoring the area and WETA would implement a shutdown for the entire zone if a harbor porpoise (or any other marine mammal) approaches the Level A zone; therefore Level A take is not being requested, nor authorized for this species.
Historically, gray whales were not common in San Francisco Bay. The Oceanic Society has tracked gray whale sightings since they began returning to San Francisco Bay regularly in the late 1990s. The Oceanic Society data show that all age classes of gray whales are entering San Francisco Bay, and that they enter as singles or in groups of up to five individuals. However, the data do not distinguish between sightings of gray whales and number of individual whales (Winning 2008). Caltrans Richmond-San Rafael Bridge project monitors recorded 12 living and two dead gray whales in the surveys performed in 2012. All sightings were in either the central or north Bay; and all but two sightings occurred during the
Since the 1982-83 El Niño, which increased water temperatures off California, bottlenose dolphins have been consistently sighted along the central California coast (Carretta
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) 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). 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)).
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 balance 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—which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation, 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.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were coupled with practical spreading loss to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see
The following measures would apply to WETA's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
Given the size of the disturbance zone for vibratory pile driving, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals would be observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, and only a portion of the zone (
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. A minimum of two observers will be required for all pile driving/removal activities. MMO requirements for construction actions are as follows:
(a) Independent observers (
(b) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
(c) Other observers (that do not have prior experience) may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
(d) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and
(e) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
(2) Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, and need the following additional minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
(c) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(e) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from
(f) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(3) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for thirty minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(4) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of small cetaceans and pinnipeds, and thirty minutes for gray whales. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.
(5) Using delay and shut-down procedures, if a species for which authorization has not been granted (including but not limited to Guadalupe fur seals and humpback whales) or if a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone, activities will shut down immediately and not restart until the animals have been confirmed to have left the area.
The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” For impact driving, we require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then 2 subsequent 3-strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of 30 minutes or longer.
Two types of sound attenuation devices will be used during impact pile-driving: Bubble curtains and pile cushions. WETA will employ the use of a bubble curtain during impact pile-driving, which is assumed to reduce the source level by 10 dB. WETA will also employ the use of 12-in-thick wood cushion block on impact hammers to attenuate underwater sound levels.
We have carefully evaluated WETA's planned mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal);
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only);
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only);
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only);
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time; and
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of WETA's planned measures, as well as any other potential measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) 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 action area. Effective reporting is critical to both compliance and 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 in action area (
• 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) population, species, or stock;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
WETA's monitoring and reporting is also described in their Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, online at
WETA will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All MMOs will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. A minimum of two MMOs will be required for all pile driving/removal activities. WETA will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, WETA will implement the following procedures for pile driving and removal:
• MMOs will be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible;
• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted; and
• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its effectiveness using an adaptive approach. The monitoring biologists will use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and WETA.
In addition, the MMO(s) will survey the potential Level A and nearby Level B harassment zones (areas within approximately 2,000 feet of the pile-driving area observable from the shore) on 2 separate days—no earlier than 7 days before the first day of construction—to establish baseline observations. Special attention will be given to the harbor seal haul-out sites in proximity to the project (
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, WETA will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, WETA will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
• Distance from pile driving or removal activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Description of implementation of mitigation measures (
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
The monitoring will be done in accordance with the methodology outlined in this Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan (see Appendix B of WETA's application for more information on this Plan, including the methodology, equipment, and reporting information). The monitoring is based on dual metric criteria that will include the following:
• Establish the distance to the 206-dB peak sound pressure criteria;
• Verify the extent of Level A harassment zones for marine mammals;
• Verify the attenuation provided by bubble curtains; and
• Provide all monitoring data to NMFS. The reports will be submitted bi-weekly, unless WETA proposes to modify the zones based on the hydroacoustic measurement, in which case WETA would report those data before zone modification. The reports would include the following information:
1. Size and type of piles;
2. A detailed description of the noise attenuation device, including design specifications;
3. The impact hammer energy rating used to drive the piles, and the make and model of the hammer and the output energy;
4. The physical characteristics of the bottom substrate into which the piles were driven;
5. The depth of water in which the pile was driven;
6. The depth into the substrate that the pile was driven;
7. A description of the sound monitoring equipment;
8. The distance between hydrophones and pile;
9. The depth of the hydrophones and depth of water at hydrophone locations;
10. The distance from the pile to the water's edge;
11. The total number of strikes to drive each pile and for all piles driven during a 24-hour period;
12. The results of the hydroacoustic monitoring, as described under Signal Processing;
13. The distance at which peak, cumulative SEL, and RMS values exceed the respective threshold values;
14. The 30 second average for the duration of each pile;
15. The spectra graphs for each pile type; and
16. A description of any observable fish, marine mammal, or bird behavior in the immediate area and, if possible, correlation to underwater sound levels occurring at that time.
A minimum of five piles of each size and type of piles to be impact driven will be monitored, including five of the 36-in-diameter donut piles, five of the 42-in-diameter guide piles; and five of the 24-in-diameter dolphin piles; and two piles of the 42-in steel piles and 14-
One hydrophone will be placed at mid-water depth at the nearest distance, approximately 10 meters, from each pile being monitored. An additional hydrophone will be placed at mid-water depth at a distance of 20 to 50 meters from the pile to provide two sound-level readings during ambient and pile driving conditions. A third hydrophone may be deployed at a greater distance (
A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving and removal days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
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 (
Pile driving and removal activities associated with the facility construction project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment (PTS and behavioral disturbance, respectively), from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving and removal occurs.
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the primary method of installation (impact driving is included only as a contingency). Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. If impact driving is necessary, implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious. WETA will also employ the use of 12-in-thick wood cushion block on impact hammers, and a bubble curtain as sound attenuation devices. Environmental conditions at Alameda Point mean that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is high, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
WETA's planned activities are localized and of relatively short duration (a maximum of 22 days for pile driving and removal). The entire project area is limited to the Central Bay operations and maintenance facility area and its immediate surroundings. These localized and short-term noise exposures may cause short-term behavioral modifications in harbor seals, northern fur seals, northern elephant seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, and gray whales. Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury and behavior exposures. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be within the ensonified area during the construction time frame.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range. However, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or authorized;
• Level B harassment may consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior (
• Mitigation is expected to minimize the likelihood and severity of the level of harassment;
• The lack of important feeding, pupping, or other areas in the action area; and
• The small percentage of the stock that may be affected by project activities (<11.479 percent for all species).
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 monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from WETA's construction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Table 9 details the number of instances that animals could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B behavioral harassment for the proposed work at the project site relative to the total stock abundance. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated instance of take occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. The total percent of the population (if each instance was a separate individual) for which take is requested is approximately 1.56 percent for harbor seals, approximately 11 percent for bottlenose dolphins, and less than 1 percent for all other species (Table 9). For pinnipeds, especially harbor seals occurring in the vicinity of the project area, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and the number of individuals taken is expected to be notably lower.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected 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 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed marine mammal species is authorized or expected to result from these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
NMFS has issued an IHA to WETA for the potential harassment of small numbers of seven species of marine mammals incidental to the Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility Project in Alameda, CA, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities as part of its Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting public comment on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the FAA to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, during the specified activity. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 29, 2017.
Comments on this proposal should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, and electronic comments should be sent to
Laura McCue, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On March 31, 2017, NMFS received a request from the FAA for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal and down the hole (DTH) drilling in association with the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project (Project) in Symonds Bay, Alaska. The FAA's request is for take of five species by Level A and Level B harassment. Neither the FAA nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
In-water work associated with the in-water construction is expected to be completed within 70 days. This proposed IHA is for the 2018 construction window (May 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018). This IHA would be valid from May 1, 2018, through April 30, 2019.
The FAA is constructing a replacement dock on Biorka Island in
The total Project is expected to require a maximum of 70 days of in-water construction activities. In-water activities are limited to occurring between May 1 and September 30 of any year to minimize impacts to special-status and commercially and biologically important fish species. This proposed authorization would be effective from May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019.
The Project is located approximately 15 miles (24 kilometers (km)) southwest of Sitka on the northern shore of Biorka Island on land owned by the FAA (see Figure 1-1 of the FAA's application). Biorka Island is the most westerly and largest of the Necker Island group on the west coast of Baranof Island.
Symonds Bay is approximately 0.4 miles wide (east to west direction). Water depths are less than 66 feet (ft) within 1,300 ft of the dock (see Figure 1-2 of the FAA's application). The outer dolphin (see Figure 1-4 of the application) would be located in about 20 ft of water at mean high water. This is the deepest water depth for all piles and, as a precautionary measure, was used as the water depth input for acoustic modeling described later in this document.
On shore at the Project site, bedrock is exposed in many places. The overburden varies from zero to about 15 ft deep and consists of highly fractured weathered bedrock and includes seams of very soft rock or soil. Due to the fractures and seams, it is possible to drive piles into this top layer “Category 1 intensely fractured bedrock.” Beneath the top layer, the rock becomes more intact “Category II intensely to moderately fractured bedrock.” The seabed composition is important in this Project because it determines the pile-driving methods needed to achieve the required pile penetration.
The Project consists of removing the existing dock and associated infrastructure and constructing a new, modern structure to provide continued safe access to Biorka Island facilities. The existing dock is a T-shaped, pile-supported structure consisting of a 170-ft long by 16-ft wide approach trestle with a 51-ft wide by 35-ft long end section. The existing infrastructure also includes a 30-ft by 32-ft floating dock that is accessed by a 5-ft wide by 50-ft long steel gangway, a small 10-ft by 10-ft pre-fabricated building, and an electric hydraulic pedestal crane.
A total of 46 existing piles would be removed (Table 1). The steel and timber piles would be pulled out of the substrate directly with a crane and sling, by using a vibratory hammer, or with a clamshell bucket. The three concrete piles that are located above the high tide were cast in place. The concrete piles are set in bedrock and will be removed at low tide using standard excavation equipment. Therefore, removal of these piles will not produce underwater noise. The construction contractor would determine the exact method for concrete pile removal.
The existing deck and other associated infrastructure would also be disassembled and removed. The existing 4-ton pedestal crane would be salvaged for relocation on the new dock. As necessary, portions of the existing rubble mound/breakwater would be removed to provide enough clearance for construction and then replaced once the dock has been constructed.
Facilities for the new dock consist of three main structures: A barge landing platform, a dock/trestle, and two dolphin fenders located near the dock outer corners (Figure 1-4 of the FAA's application). For these structures, temporary piles would be installed to form a scaffold system (
Construction of the new dock would begin with the erection of a temporary template. The construction contractor would determine the specific type and size of template piles based on site conditions and availability of materials. The template piles would be driven into the overburden by vibratory hammer and removed after the permanent piles are installed. Table 2 shows the anticipated number of template piles for the Project.
The new trestle approach would be up to 25-ft wide. An 80-ft aluminum gangway connecting to a 15-ft wide by 32-ft long small craft berthing float would also be constructed (see Figure 1-4 of the FAA's application). The face of the dock would be approximately 54-ft long and 35-ft wide. Similar to the trestle, steel pipe pilings would support a precast concrete deck. Two berthing dolphin fenders would be installed, one at each end section of the new dock. These dolphins each consist of one 30-in diameter plumb pile and two 18-in diameter batter piles. Some piles would require internal tension anchors for increased support. A wave barrier, consisting of Z-sheet piles in between steel H piles, would be installed at the face of the dock. Pile counts, sizes, and other details are shown in Table 2.
All permanent pipe piles would be installed using a combination of vibratory and impact hammering methods to drive the pile into the overburden. Pipe piles would then be drilled and socketed into the underlying bedrock using DTH hammering/drilling techniques. DTH equipment breaks up the rock below the pile while simultaneously installing the pile through rock formation. The pile is then set/confirmed with a few strikes of an impact hammer. Sheet piles would be driven into the overburden and set into the top layer of bedrock using a combination of vibratory and impact hammering.
Certain piles would require internal tension anchors. Up to eight of the dock piles and all six piles for the dolphins would require these internal tension anchors. Each pile with a tension anchor would first be drilled, socketed into bedrock, and proof driven with an impact hammer as described above for permanent piles. Then a separate smaller drill would be used to complete
The wave barrier consisting of steel H piles with Z sheets in between is located at the face of the dock. The H piles and Z sheets would be initially driven through overlying sediment with a vibratory hammer, and set into the bedrock with an impact hammer. The wave barrier sheet piling would be driven either singly or in preassembled pairs.
The current barge landing is located northwest of the existing dock and is comprised of gravel and cobbles with no formal structure. The uplands area on the west end of the trestle would be slightly graded into the existing terrestrial approach. The existing barge landing would be upgraded to a 30-ft by 90-ft precast concrete plank landing placed over fill, with a perimeter constructed of concrete, sheet piles, and 18-in steel piles (see Table 2). Similar to the wave barrier, the sequence for installing the permanent barge ramp pipe piles would begin with advancement through overlying sediment with a vibratory hammer, followed by use of an impact hammer to drive the piles into bedrock.
Vibratory hammers are commonly used in steel pile driving or removal where sediments allow. Generally, the pile is placed into position using a choker and crane, and then vibrated between 1,200 and 2,400 vibrations per minute. The vibrations liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth, or to be removed.
Impact hammers are used to install plastic/steel core, wood, concrete, or steel piles. An impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston. The pile is first moved into position and set in the proper location using a choker cable or vibratory hammer. The impact hammer is held in place by a guide (lead) that aligns the hammer with the pile. A heavy piston moves up and down, striking the top of the pile and driving it into the substrate. Once the pile is set in place, pile installation with an impact hammer can take less than 15 minutes under good substrate conditions. However, under poor conditions, such as glacial till and bedrock or exceptionally loose material, piles can take longer to set.
The DTH drill/hammer acts on a shoe at the bottom of the pile and uses a pulsing mechanism to break up rock below the pile while simultaneously installing the pile through the rock formation. Rotating bit wings extend below the pile and remove the broken rock fragments as the pile advances. The pulsing sounds produced by the DTH hydro-hammer method reduces sound attenuation because the noise is primarily contained within the steel pile and below ground rather than impact hammer driving methods which occur at the top of the pile (R&M 2016). Therefore, the pulsing sounds produced by this method are considered less harmful than those produced by impact hammer driving. Table 3 provides a summary of the six methods of construction (“scenarios”) used in the modeling of the zone of influence (ZOI)s for the Biorka Project.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see
There are five marine mammal species that may likely transit through the waters nearby the Project area, and are expected to potentially be taken by the specified activity. These include the Steller sea lion (
Sections 3 and 4 of the FAA's application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 4 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in Symonds Bay and Sitka Sound and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas, but are not expected to have reasonable potential to be harassed by in-water construction, are described briefly but omitted from further analysis. These include extralimital species, which are species that do not normally occur in a given area but for which there are one or more occurrence records that are considered beyond the normal range of the species. Gray whales are observed in and outside of Sitka Sound during their northward spring migration; however, they occur generally north and west of the Project area in outer shelf waters of Sitka Sound near Kruzof Island during the construction window. Dall's porpoise are observed in mid- to outer-shelf coastal waters of Sitka Sound ranging to the Gulf of Alaska and are not expected to occur in the Project area during the construction window. Pacific white-sided dolphins occur in the outer-shelf slope in the Gulf of Alaska, which is outside of the Project area. During the construction window, they are considered rare in Sitka Sound. Sperm whales generally occur in deeper waters in the Gulf of Alaska, which is outside of the Project area. We do not anticipate gray whales, Dall's porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphins, or sperm whales to be affected by Project activities; therefore, we do not discuss these species further. For status of species, we provide information regarding U.S. regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific SARs (Muto
Below, for those species that are likely to be taken by the activities described, we offer a brief introduction to the species and relevant stock. We also provide information regarding population trends and threats, and describe any information regarding local occurrence.
In Southeast Alaska, marine mammal distributions and seasonal increases in their abundance are strongly influenced by seasonal pre-spawning and spawning aggregations of forage fish, particularly Pacific herring (
Herring are the keystone species in Southeast Alaska, especially Sitka Sound, serving as a vital link between lower trophic levels, including crustaceans and small fish, and higher trophic levels (NMFS 2014a). Foraging studies of Steller sea lions suggest that during their non-breeding season, they forage on seasonally densely aggregated prey (Sinclair and Zepplin 2002). In southeast Alaska, Pacific herring typically spawn from March to May and attract large numbers of predators (Marston
Steller sea lions are divided in to two distinct population segments (DPSs): The western DPS (wDPS) and the eastern DPS (eDPS). The wDPS is listed as endangered under the ESA. The wDPS breeds on rookeries located west of 144° W. in Alaska and Russia, whereas the eDPS breeds on rookeries in southeast Alaska through California. The majority of Steller sea lions are part of the non-listed eDPS. The best available information indicates the eDPS has increased at a rate of 4.18 percent per year between 1979 and 2010 (Allen and Angliss 2014). Steller sea lions range from the North Pacific Rim from northern Japan to California, with centers of abundance located in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. Large numbers of individuals disperse widely outside of the breeding season (late May to early July), thus potentially intermixing with animals from other areas to access seasonally important prey resources (Allen and Angliss 2014). The distinction between western and eastern DPS individuals cannot be confirmed unless an animal has been marked, and since guidance on how to otherwise distinguish between the two DPSs is not available, for this IHA it is assumed that 50 percent of the Steller sea lions observed in the Project area are from each DPS.
Critical habitat for Steller sea lions includes designated haulouts within the range of the eDPS, and all marine waters within 20 nautical miles of rookeries and haulouts within the breeding range of the wDPS and within three special aquatic foraging areas in Alaska (NMFS 1993). In identifying aquatic habitats as part of critical habitat, NMFS specifically highlighted several components of such habitats: Nearshore waters around rookeries and haulouts; traditional rafting sites; food resources; and foraging habitats. Adequate food resources are an essential feature of the Steller sea lion's aquatic habitat (NMFS 1993). The closest haulout/rookery to the Project area that has been designated as a Steller sea lion critical habitat is listed as “Biorka Island” in the critical habitat descriptions. However, the haulout is actually on Kaiuchali Island, a three-acre rocky islet located slightly less than one mile southwest of Biorka Island, outside of the ZOI for this project.
This species occurs in coastal and nearshore habitats of Sitka Sound, and forage on herring and salmon throughout the Sound. Both DPSs occur in the Project area on a year-round basis. Kaiuchali Island is used as a sea lion rookery in spring-summer and as a haulout during the non-breeding seasons (Fritz
The breeding season for Steller sea lions does not overlap with proposed summer construction activity at the Project site, and the location of the rookery at Kaiuchali Island is outside the Project area, opposite Biorka Island. The late fall and overwintering aggregation of adult herring results in hundreds of animals using Kaiuchali Island as a haulout during this period; however, the construction period for the proposed Project would not overlap with the overwintering aggregations of sea lions. Steller sea lions are present in Sitka Sound in very low numbers over the summer months when construction is planned, during the interval between herring spawning and the return of adult herring to Sitka Sound. Prey availability for Steller sea lions in Sitka Sound is limited during this period as compared to other seasons, and they are generally only observed by the whale watch industry as individuals or in small groups of three to five animals. During this period, sea lions tend to forage in the vicinity of recreational and commercial fishing vessels, or scavenge in very shallow waters near the Sitka town docks when the vessels return from fishing.
Harbor seals inhabit coastal and estuarine waters off Alaska. Harbor seals in Southeast Alaska are considered non-migratory with local movements attributed to factors such as prey availability, weather, and reproduction. In 2010, NMFS identified 12 stocks of harbor seals in Alaska based on genetic structure (Allen and Angliss 2015). The Sitka/Chatham (S/C) stock is genetically distinct and believed to be year-round residents of the region. Although generally solitary in the water, harbor seals congregate at haulouts to rest, socialize, breed, and molt. Habitats used as haul-out sites include tidal rocks, bayflats, sandbars, and sandy beaches (Zeiner
Harbor seals are opportunistic feeders that forage on fish and invertebrates and often adjust their distribution to take advantage of locally and seasonally abundant prey. Aggregations of adult herring during spring pre-spawning and spawning runs, and again from October throughout the winter, are a very important seasonal prey species for harbor seals in Sitka Sound. The minimum count of harbor seals within Sitka Sound during the 2011 aerial survey was approximately 900 individuals occupying 25 haulout locations (unpublished data from MML dataset). The largest count of seals in Sitka Sound (n = 745) during the 2011 survey occurred at several adjacent rocky outcroppings and islands (Vitskari Rocks, Vitskari Island and Low Island) located approximately 15 miles (24 km) north of the Project site in northcentral Sitka Sound inside Kruzof Island. This is outside of the Project Area. Prey species moving into Sitka Sound from the Gulf of Alaska move past these islands so pinnipeds aggregate at these rocks to forage. There are six haul-out locations identified in the extreme southern portion of the Sitka Sound, and potentially in the Project Area, including rocky outcroppings near Biorka Island, where seals have been observed in low numbers. Prey resources inside Symonds Bay are limited, particularly when compared to the northern coastal areas of Sitka Sound. While individual seals may occur in Symonds Bay, it is unlikely that seals would be attracted to Symonds Bay to forage. While their occurrence in the Action Area is possible, it is infrequent to uncommon and only small numbers of approximately five animals per day are expected to potentially be in the Project area during the construction window.
In the Pacific, harbor porpoise are found in coastal and inland waters from Point Conception, California to Alaska and across to Kamchatka and Japan (Gaskin 1984). Harbor porpoise appear to have more restricted movements along the western coast of the continental U.S. than along the eastern coast. In the Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska they are observed most frequently in waters less than 350 ft (107 m) deep (Dahlheim
This species can be found in Sitka Sound throughout the year but individuals are infrequently observed during the summer months by the whale watching industry. Harbor porpoise are infrequently observed in nearshore Sitka Sound areas in summer by hikers on the coastal trails that parallel the coastline near Sitka. At times throughout the year, they likely forage exclusively on herring and may be more abundant when herring are present. During surveys for seabirds, marine mammals and forage fish conducted in Sitka Sound during July 2000, relatively few marine mammals were observed during this period. However, one harbor porpoise was observed in coastal/shelf waters of northeast Sitka Sound (Piatt and Dragoo 2005).
Killer whales are found throughout the North Pacific. Along the west coast of North America, killer whales occur along the entire Alaskan coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Allen and Angliss 2014). Seasonal and year-round occurrence has been documented for killer whales throughout Alaska and in the intra-coastal waterways of British Columbia and Washington State.
Killer whales that are observed in Southeast Alaska could belong to one of three different stocks: Eastern North Pacific Northern Resident Stock (Northern residents); Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient Stock (Gulf of Alaska transients); or West Coast Transient Stock. The Gulf of Alaska Transient Stock occupies a range that includes southeastern Alaska. Resident killer whales do not occur in Sitka Sound. However, transient killer whales from either the Gulf of Alaska transient group or West Coast Transient Stock have been observed in the sound. These whales are observed infrequently during summer months with five to six sightings noted throughout the summer by the whale-watching industry. Dahlheim
Humpback whales were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1970. As a result of the ESA listing, the central North Pacific Stock of humpback whale was also designated as depleted under the MMPA. The humpback whale is also considered a strategic stock under the MMPA. NMFS proposed a revised species-wide listing of the humpback whale in 2015 and a revision to the status of humpback whale DPSs was finalized by NMFS on September 8, 2016 (NMFS 2016b), effective October 11, 2016. In the final decision, NMFS recognized the existence of 14 DPSs, classified four of those as endangered and one as threatened, and determined that the remaining nine DPSs do not warrant protection under the ESA. Three DPSs of humpback whales occur in waters off the coast of Alaska: The endangered Western North Pacific (WNP) DPS, the threatened Mexico DPS, and the Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under the ESA. Humpback whales in Southeast Alaska are most likely to be from the Hawaii DPS (93.9 percent probability) (Wade
The humpback whales of Southeast Alaska and Northern British Columbia form a genetically discrete feeding aggregation and return to specific feeding locations in southeast Alaska including Sitka Sound. Humpback whale seasonal distribution varies from infrequent (very low in number during summer), to common (very abundant during late fall through spring). Humpback whales are most abundant in Sitka Sound from late fall through April when they forage on large densities of herring (Liddle
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity (
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
•
•
•
•
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
In-water construction activities associated with the Project would include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and removal, and DTH drilling. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI 1995; NIOSH 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess these potential effects, 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 (
As mentioned previously in this document, five marine mammal species (three cetaceans and two pinnipeds) may occur in the Project area. Of these three cetaceans, one is classified as a low-frequency cetacean (
Please refer to the information given previously (
Richardson
We describe the more severe effects (
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals—PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal (Kastak
Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions (
When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (16 U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series (
1.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin (
2.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour
3.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
4.
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species could be expected to include physiological and behavioral responses to the acoustic signature (Viada
Responses to continuous sound, such as vibratory pile installation, have not been documented as well as responses to pulsed sounds. With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be expected to be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, or reproduction. Significant behavioral modifications that could potentially lead to effects on growth, survival, or reproduction include:
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Longer-term habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Longer-term cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
Natural and artificial sounds can disrupt behavior by masking. The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water pile driving and removal and DTH drilling is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds made by porpoises. The most intense underwater sounds in the proposed action are those produced by impact pile driving. Given that the energy distribution of pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum, sound from these sources would likely be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the Project area. Impact pile driving activity is relatively short-term, with rapid pulses occurring for approximately fifteen minutes per pile. The probability for impact pile driving resulting from this proposed action masking acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species is low. Vibratory pile driving is also relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations occurring for approximately one and a half hours per pile. It is possible that
Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the Project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduction in vocalizations, or cause them to temporarily abandon the area and move further from the source. However, these animals would previously have been `taken' as a result of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Multiple instances of exposure to sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed to result in increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or intensity of disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
The proposed activities at the Project area would not result in permanent negative impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, but may have potential short-term impacts to food sources such as forage fish and may affect acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above). There are no known foraging hotspots or other ocean bottom structure of significant biological importance to marine mammals present in the marine waters of the Project area during the construction window. Therefore, the main impact issue associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated sound levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals, as discussed previously in this document. The primary potential acoustic impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory and impact pile driving and removal and DTH drilling in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
Construction activities would produce continuous (
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving and drilling activities at the Project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short timeframe for the Project.
The area likely impacted by the Project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in Sitka Sound (
The duration of the construction activities is relatively short. The construction window is for a maximum of 70 days and each day, construction activities would only occur for a few hours during the day. Impacts to habitat and prey are expected to be minimal based on the short duration of activities.
In summary, given the short daily duration of sound associated with individual pile driving and drilling events and the relatively small areas being affected, pile driving and drilling activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but
Authorized takes would be by Level A and Level B harassment, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to vibratory and impact pile driving and removal and DTH drilling, and potential PTS for animals that may transit through the Level A zones undetected. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or proposed to be 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. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
The estimation of marine mammal takes typically uses the following calculation since site-specific density is unavailable:
Level B exposure estimate = N (number of animals) in the area * Number of days of noise generating activities.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
The FAA's proposed activities include the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and DTH drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) are applicable.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The FAA's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and DTH drilling) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
Pile driving and removal and DTH drilling generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the Project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the
JASCO Applied Sciences (JASCO) conducted acoustic modeling of pile installation and removal activities planned for the Project, which is included as Appendix A of the FAA's application. To assess potential underwater noise exposure of marine mammals during construction activities, Quijano and Austin (2017) determined source levels for six different construction scenarios (see Table 3). The source levels are frequency-dependent and suitable for modeling underwater acoustic propagation using JASCO's Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM). The modeling predicted the extent of ensonification and the acoustic footprint from construction activities, taking into account the effects of pile driving equipment, bathymetry, sound speed profile, and seabed geoacoustic parameters. Auditory weighting was applied to the modeled sound fields to estimate received levels relative to hearing sensitivities of five marine mammal hearing groups following NMFS 2016 guidance.
The results are based on currently adopted sound level thresholds for auditory injury (Level A) expressed as peak pressure level (PK) and 24-hr sound exposure level (SEL), and behavioral disturbance (Level B) expressed as sound pressure level (SPL). Using these guidelines, Quijano and Austin (2017) calculated the maximum extent (distance and ensonified areas) of the Level A and Level B exposure zones for each marine mammal functional hearing group. This was calculated for both impact and vibratory pile driving of 18- and 30-in piles for each of the following six Project scenarios.
The model required as input, source sound levels in
1. Piles driven into the sediment by impact, vibratory, or downhole drilling were characterized as sound-radiating sources. Source levels in
2. Underwater sound propagation was applied to predict how sound propagates from the pile into the water column as a function of range, depth, and azimuthal direction. Propagation depends on several conditions including the frequency content of the sound, the bathymetry, the sound speed in the water column, and sediment geoacoustics; and
3. The propagated sound field was used to compute received levels over a grid of simulated receivers, from which distances to criteria thresholds and maps of ensonified areas were generated.
Modeled results are presented as tables of distances at which SPLs or SELs fell below thresholds defined by criteria. For marine mammal injury, the Level A thresholds considered here follow the NMFS guidelines (NMFS 2016). A detailed description of the modeling process is provided in Appendix A of the FAA's IHA application.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
At-sea densities for marine mammal species have not been determined for marine mammals in Sitka Sound; therefore, all estimates here are determined by using observational data from biologists, peer-reviewed literature, and information obtained from personal communication with researchers and state and Federal biologists, and from local charter boat operators.
Harbor seals are expected to be in the Project area in low numbers (see
Steller sea lion abundance in the Project area is dependent on prey availability. Prey species are uncommon during the Project window; therefore, sea lion abundance is expected to be low. The FAA estimates that five sea lions may be in the Project area every day (70 days) of construction, therefore, we estimate that 350 sea lions may be taken by Level B harassment. We estimate that these takes would be split equally between the eDPS and wDPS (175 each). The Level A zone is less than 10 m; however, to be conservative, the FAA is requesting a small group of Steller sea lions to be taken by Level A harassment. This would equate to six total animals if split equally by DPS (3 each).
Humpback whales are found in Sitka Bay seasonally. During mid-summer, tour boats generally see four to five whales per day, in the middle of Sitka Sound. Therefore, a count of 5 humpback whales per day (70 days) was used to estimate takes per day on every day of construction for a total of 350 takes by Level B harassment. All takes would be from the Central North Pacific stock under the MMPA. For ESA purposes, 93.9 percent would be from the Hawaii DPS (328 animals) and 6.1 percent would be from the Mexico stock (22 animals) based on Wade
Generally, transient killer whales follow the movements of Steller sea lions and harbor seals on which they prey. Given the low numbers of Steller sea lions in Sitka Sound during summer, it is consistent that transient killer whales would also be rare or infrequent in the Project area (
Harbor porpoise are expected to occur in the Project area in low numbers during the construction window. Sightings during this time period are infrequent; this species is not observed every day. The mean group size of harbor porpoise in Southeast Alaska was estimated to be between 2 to 3 individuals (Dahlheim
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
All estimates are conservative and include the following assumptions:
• All pilings installed at each site would have an underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the greatest noise disturbance (
• Exposures were based on an estimated total of 70 work days. Each activity ranges in amount of days needed to be completed (Table 3).
• All marine mammal individuals potentially available are assumed to be present within the relevant area, and thus incidentally taken;
• An individual can only be taken once during a 24-hour period; and,
• Exposures to sound levels at or above the relevant thresholds equate to take, as defined by the MMPA.
Estimates of potential instances of take may be overestimates of the number of individuals taken. In the context of stationary activities such as pile driving and in areas where resident animals may be present, this number represents the number of total take that may accrue to a smaller number of individuals, with some number of animals being exposed more than once per individual. While pile driving and removal can occur any day throughout the in-water work window, and the analysis is conducted on a per day basis, only a fraction of that time (typically a matter of hours on any given day) is actually spent pile driving/removal. The potential effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing the number of takes is typically not quantified in the take estimation process. For these reasons, these take estimates may be conservative.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) 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). 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)).
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 balance 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—which considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), as well as the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented; and the likelihood of effective implementation, and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which
The ZOIs were used to develop mitigation measures for pile driving and removal activities at the Project area. The ZOIs effectively represent the mitigation zone that would be established around each pile to prevent Level A harassment to marine mammals, while providing estimates of the areas within which Level B harassment might occur. In addition to the specific measures described later in this section, the FAA would conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
The following measures would apply to the FAA's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
Given the size of the disturbance zone for vibratory pile driving and DTH drilling, it is impossible to guarantee that all animals would be observed or to make comprehensive observations of fine-scale behavioral reactions to sound, and only a portion of the zone (
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. A minimum of two observers will be required for all pile driving/removal activities. Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) requirements for construction actions are as follows:
(a) Independent observers (
(b) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
(c) Other observers (that do not have prior experience) may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
(d) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and
(e) NMFS will require submission and approval of observer resumes.
(2) Qualified MMOs are trained biologists, and need the following additional minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
(c) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(d) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(e) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
(f) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
(3) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for 15 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
(4) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of small cetaceans and pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for humpback whales. Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile.
(5) Using delay and shut-down procedures, if a species for which authorization has not been granted or if a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone, activities will shut down immediately and not restart until the animals have been confirmed to have left the area.
The use of a soft start procedure is believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by warning or providing a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity, and typically involves a requirement to initiate sound from the hammer at reduced energy followed by a waiting period. This procedure is repeated two additional times. It is difficult to specify the reduction in energy for any given hammer because of variation across drivers and, for impact hammers, the actual number of strikes at reduced energy will vary because operating the hammer at less than full power results in “bouncing” of the hammer as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.” For impact driving, we require an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then 2 subsequent 3 strike sets. Soft start will be required at the beginning of each day's impact pile driving work and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of 30 minutes or longer.
The FAA will only conduct construction activities during daytime hours. Construction will also be restricted to the months of May through September to avoid overlap with times when marine mammals have higher densities in the Project area.
We have carefully evaluated the FAA's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to preliminarily determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal);
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only);
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment only);
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only);
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time; and
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the FAA's proposed measures, as well as any other potential measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) 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 to both compliance and 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 in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through
• 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) population, species, or stock;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The FAA will collect sighting data and behavioral responses to construction for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All MMOs will be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring. A minimum of two MMOs will be required for all pile driving/removal activities. The FAA will monitor the shutdown zone and disturbance zone before, during, and after pile driving, with observers located at the best practicable vantage points. Based on our requirements, the FAA would implement the following procedures for pile driving and removal:
• MMOs would be located at the best vantage point(s) in order to properly see the entire shutdown zone and as much of the disturbance zone as possible;
• During all observation periods, observers will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals;
• If the shutdown zones are obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving at that location will not be initiated until that zone is visible. Should such conditions arise while impact driving is underway, the activity would be halted; and
• The shutdown and disturbance zones around the pile will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals before, during, and after any pile driving or removal activity.
We require that observers use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the FAA will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the FAA will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidences of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel, and if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
• Distance from pile driving or removal activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Description of implementation of mitigation measures (
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
A draft report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any future IHA for projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The report will include marine mammal observations pre-activity, during-activity, and post-activity during pile driving and removal days, and will also provide descriptions of any behavioral responses to construction activities by marine mammals and a complete description of all mitigation shutdowns and the results of those actions and an extrapolated total take estimate based on the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report.
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 (
Pile driving and removal activities associated with the dock replacement Project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment (PTS and behavioral disturbance), from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving and removal occurs. Most of the Level A takes are precautionary as marine mammals are not expected to enter and stay in the Level A ensonified area for the duration needed to incur PTS. However, if all authorized takes be Level A harassment were to occur, they would be of small numbers compared to the stock sizes and would not adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. Additionally, the FAA's mitigation measures, including a shutdown of construction
No TTS, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory and impact hammers and drilling will be the primary methods of installation. Impact pile driving produces short, sharp pulses with higher peak levels and much sharper rise time to reach those peaks. If impact driving is necessary, implementation of soft start and shutdown zones significantly reduces any possibility of injury. Given sufficient “notice” through use of soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from a sound source that is annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious, however, as noted previously a small number of potential takes by PTS are proposed for authorization and have been analyzed. The FAA will use a minimum of two MMOs stationed strategically to increase detectability of marine mammals, enabling a high rate of success in implementation of shutdowns to avoid injury.
The FAA's proposed activities are localized and of relatively short duration (a maximum of 70 days for pile driving and removal). The entire Project area is limited to Symonds Bay and into Sitka Sound for some scenarios. These localized and short-term noise exposures may cause short-term behavioral modifications in harbor seals, Steller sea lions, harbor porpoises, killer whales, and humpback whales. Moreover, the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce the likelihood of injury. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be within the ensonified area during the construction window.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
The Project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat. The Project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat for a significant amount of time. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range. However, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, and the decreased potential of prey species to be in the Project area during the construction work window, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or authorized;
• Level B harassment may consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior (
• The lack of important feeding, pupping, or other areas in the action area during the construction window;
• Mitigation is expected to minimize the likelihood and severity of the level of harassment; and
• The small percentage of the stock that may be affected by Project activities (<15 percent for all stocks).
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 preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the FAA's construction activities will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Table 10 details the number of instances that animals could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B harassment for the proposed work at the Project site relative to the total stock abundance. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated instance of take occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. The total percent of the population (if each instance was a separate individual) for which take is requested is less than 15 percent for all stocks (Table 10). For pinnipeds, especially harbor seals occurring in the vicinity of the Project area, there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and the number of individuals taken is expected to be notably lower.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as: an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Harbor seals and Steller sea lions are subsistence harvested in Alaska. During 2012, the estimated subsistence take of harbor seals in southeast Alaska was 595 seals with 49 of these taken near Sitka (Wolfe
The peak hunting season in southeast Alaska occurs during the month of November and again over the March to April time frame (Wolfe
The proposed Project is in an area where subsistence hunting for harbor seals or sea lions could occur (Wolfe
To satisfy requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, R&M Consultants, Inc. reached out to the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida, and Sealaska regarding cultural resources in 2016. No issues or concerns with the Project were raised during this effort.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from the FAA's proposed activities.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of two DPSs (
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the FAA for conducting their Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This IHA is valid for 1 year from May 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019.
2. This IHA is valid only for pile driving and removal activities associated with the Biorka Island Dock Replacement Project in Symonds Bay, Alaska from May 1 to September 30, 2018.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the FAA, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are summarized in Table 11.
(c) The taking, by Level A and Level B harassment, is limited to the species
(d) The taking by injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or death of the species listed in condition 3(b) of the Authorization or any taking of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA, unless authorization of take by Level A harassment is listed in condition 3(b) of this Authorization.
(e) The FAA shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and staff prior to the start of all pile driving and removal activities, and when new personnel join the work.
4.
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures.
(a) For all pile driving and removal, the FAA shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around the pile. Additionally, the FAA shall implement shutdown zones for each construction scenario as presented in Table 12. If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the applicable shutdown zone, such operations shall cease.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (
(c) The FAA shall establish monitoring locations as described below. Please also refer to the FAA's application (see
i. For all pile driving and removal activities, a minimum of two observers shall be deployed, with one positioned to achieve optimal monitoring of the shutdown zones and the second positioned to achieve optimal monitoring of surrounding waters of Biorka dock and portions of Symonds Bay and Sitka Sound. If practicable, the second observer should be deployed to an elevated position with clear sight lines to the Project area.
ii. These observers shall record all observations of marine mammals, regardless of distance from the pile being driven, as well as behavior and potential behavioral reactions of the animals.
iii. All observers shall be equipped for communication of marine mammal observations amongst themselves and to other relevant personnel (
(d) Monitoring shall take place from 15 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving and removal activity through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving and removal activity. In the event of a delay or shutdown of activity resulting
(e) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, all pile driving and removal activities at that location shall be halted. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or fifteen minutes have passed without re-detection of small cetaceans and pinnipeds and 30 minutes for humpback whales.
(f) Using delay and shut-down procedures, if a species for which authorization has not been granted or if a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized takes are met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone (Table 2), activities will shut down immediately and not restart until the animals have been confirmed to have left the area.
(g) Monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers. Trained observers shall be placed from the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator. Observer training must be provided prior to project start and in accordance with the monitoring measures in the application, and shall include instruction on species identification (sufficient to distinguish the species listed in 3(b)), description and categorization of observed behaviors and interpretation of behaviors that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity, proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to individuals (to the extent possible).
(h) The FAA shall use soft start techniques recommended by NMFS for impact pile driving. Soft start requires contractors to provide an initial set of strikes at reduced energy, followed by a thirty-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced energy strike sets. Soft start shall be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of impact pile driving for a period of thirty minutes or longer.
(i) Pile driving shall only be conducted during daylight hours.
5. Monitoring
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct marine mammal monitoring during pile driving and removal activities. Marine mammal monitoring and reporting shall be conducted in accordance with the monitoring measures in the application.
(a) The FAA shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses to pile driving and removal and drilling activities for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. All observers shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors, and shall have no other construction-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
(b) For all marine mammal monitoring, the information shall be recorded as described in the monitoring measures section of the application.
6. Reporting
The holder of this Authorization is required to:
(a) Submit a draft report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent IHA for projects at the Project area, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain the informational elements described in the application, at minimum (see
i. Detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any.
ii. Description of attempts to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take, such as ability to track groups or individuals.
iii. An estimated total take estimate extrapolated from the number of marine mammals observed during the course of construction activities, if necessary.
(b) Reporting 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 this IHA, such as a serious injury or mortality, the FAA shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. 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).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the FAA to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The FAA may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
ii. In the event that the FAA 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 (
The report must include the same information identified in 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with the FAA to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
iii. In the event that the FAA 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 IHA (
7. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs for the FAA's dock replacement construction activities. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the FAA's request for MMPA authorization.
Deputy Chief Management Officer, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, September 28, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Pentagon Library and Conference Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Mrs. Marcia Moore, 703-571-2005 (Voice), 703-692-4691 (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.
In accordance with Public Law 110-181 sec. 598; the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish the Vietnam War Commemoration Office. The Office promotes events, exhibits, partnerships, and other activities to meet the objectives specified in Law: 1. To thank and honor veterans of the Vietnam War, including personnel who were held as prisoners of war (POW), or listed as missing in action (MIA), for their service and sacrifice on behalf of the United States and to thank and honor the families of these veterans. 2. To highlight the service of the Armed Forces during the Vietnam War and the contributions of Federal agencies and governmental and non-governmental organizations that served with, or in support of, the Armed Forces. 3. To pay tribute to the contributions made on the home front by the people of the United States during the Vietnam War. 4. To highlight the advances in technology, science, and medicine related to military research conducted during the Vietnam War. 5. To recognize the contributions and sacrifices made by the allies of the United States during the Vietnam War.
Take notice that on July 25, 2017, Great River Energy submitted a supplement to its December 29, 2016 updated revenue requirement for Reactive Power Service provided under Schedule 2 of the Midwest ISO Tariff.
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, 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. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
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
Take notice that on August 18, 2017, Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC (Tallgrass), 370 Van Gordon Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, filed an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations requesting authority to abandon a 47-mile 16-inch-diameter pipe segment (Segment 55) on its pipeline system from the discharge side of the existing Labonte Compressor Station located in Converse County, Wyoming to the inlet side of the existing Guernsey Compressor Station located in Platte County, Wyoming. Tallgrass states that Segment 55 will be abandoned in place and sold to Tallgrass Midstream, LLC (TMID), an affiliate. Upon authorization to abandon the facilities described above, TMID will purchase, convert, own and operate the pipeline segment as a crude oil pipeline to meet the increasing demand for pipeline transportation of crude oil. The filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to David Haag, Vice President, Regulatory, Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC, 370 Van Gordon Street Lakewood, CO 80228-1519, phone: (303) 763-3258 or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
In notice document 2017-17737, appearing on page 39785, in the issue of Tuesday, August 22, 2017, make the following correction:
On page 39785, in the second column, in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
On September 12, 2017, EPA is holding a workshop on the use of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing. In a proposed rule published on January 19, 2017, EPA proposed to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removal and most types of commercial paint and coating removal, except for
The meeting will be held in Boston on September 12, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the technical person listed under
The meeting will be held at held at EPA's Region 1 office at 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912.
This action may be of particular interest to entities that manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import), process, distribute in commerce, use or dispose of methylene chloride or other chemicals in furniture restoration, especially entities identified under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 811420. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities and corresponding NAICS codes for entities that may be interested in or affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0139 is available at
In the
To attend the meeting in person or to receive remote access, you must register no later than September 10, 2017, by visiting:
You may submit written information for consideration during or after this meeting. Information should be submitted to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-139 available at through
15 U.S.C. 2605.
Farm Credit Administration.
Policy statement.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) Board recently updated its Policy Statement on Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity.
August 24, 2017.
Thais Burlew, Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Inclusion, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4290, TTY (703) 883-4352.
While not required by law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has determined that reissuance of an agency's EEO policy statement each fiscal year is a symbol of the agency leadership's commitment to EEO and Diversity principles. The FCA conducted its annual review of Policy Statement FCA-PS-62 on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity. The policy has no changes other than a citation clarification.
The text of the updated Policy Statement is set forth below in its entirety. All FCA Board policy statements may be viewed on FCA's Web site. From
The Farm Credit Administration Board hereby adopts the following policy statement:
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) Board reaffirms its commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Diversity (EEOD) and its belief that all FCA employees should be treated with dignity and respect. The Board also provides guidance to Agency management and staff for deciding and taking action in these critical areas.
Unquestionably, the employees who comprise the FCA are its most important resource. The Board fully recognizes that the Agency draws its strength from the dedication, experience, and diversity of its employees. The Board is firmly committed to taking whatever steps are needed to protect the rights of its staff and to carrying out programs that foster the development of each employee's potential. We believe an investment in efforts that strongly promote EEOD will prevent the conflict and the high costs of correction for taking no, or inadequate, action in these areas.
It is the policy of the FCA to prohibit discrimination in Agency policies, program practices, and operations. Employees, applicants for employment, and members of the public who seek to take part in FCA programs, activities, and services will be treated fairly. The FCA Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is ultimately responsible for ensuring that FCA meets all EEOD requirements and initiatives in accordance with laws and regulations, to maintain a workplace that is free from discrimination and that values all employees. FCA, under the appropriate laws and regulations, will:
• Ensure equal employment opportunity based on merit and qualification, without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation), age (40 or older), national origin, disability, status as a parent, genetic information, or filing of a complaint, participation in discrimination or harassment complaint proceedings, or other opposition to discrimination;
• Provide for the prompt and fair consideration of complaints of discrimination;
• Make reasonable accommodations for qualified applicants for employment and employees with physical or mental disabilities under law;
• Make reasonable accommodations based on applicants' and employees' religious beliefs or practices, consistent with Title VII;
• Provide an environment free from harassment to all employees;
• Create and maintain an organizational culture that recognizes, values, and supports employee and public diversity and inclusion;
• Develop objectives within the Agency's operation and strategic planning process to meet the goals of EEOD and this policy;
• Implement affirmative programs to carry out this policy within the Agency; and
• To the extent practicable, seek to encourage the Farm Credit System to continue its efforts to promote and increase diversity.
The FCA intends to be a model employer. That is, as far as possible, FCA will build and maintain a workforce that reflects the rich diversity of individual differences evident throughout this Nation. The Board views individual differences as complementary and believes these differences enrich our organization. When individual differences are respected, recognized, and valued, diversity becomes a powerful force that can contribute to achieving superior results. Therefore, we will create, maintain, and continuously improve on an organizational culture that fully recognizes, values, and supports employee diversity. The Board is committed to promoting and supporting an inclusive environment that provides to all employees, individually and collectively, the chance to work to their full potential in the pursuit of the
The Board reaffirms its commitment to ensuring FCA conducts all of its employment practices in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Board expects full cooperation and support from everyone associated with recruitment, selection, development, and promotion to ensure such actions are free of discrimination. All employees will be evaluated on their EEOD achievements as part of their overall job performance. Though staff commitment is important, the role of supervisors is paramount to success. Agency supervisors must be coaches and are responsible for helping all employees develop their talents and give their best efforts in contributing to the mission of the FCA.
It is the policy of the FCA to provide a work environment free from unlawful discrimination in any form, and to protect all employees from any form of harassment, either physical or verbal. The FCA will not tolerate harassment in the workplace for any reason. The FCA also will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for reporting harassment or for aiding in any inquiry about reporting harassment. FCA begins prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations within 10 days of receiving notice of harassment allegations.
A disabled veteran is defined as someone who is entitled to compensation under the laws administered by the Veterans Administration or someone who was discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected disability.
The FCA is committed to increasing the representation of disabled veterans within its organization. Our Nation owes a debt to those veterans who served their country, especially those who were disabled because of service. To honor these disabled veterans, the FCA shall place emphasis on making vacancies known to and providing opportunities for employing disabled veterans.
By Order Of The Board.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice and request for public comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is considering the production and publication of three rates by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), based on data for overnight repurchase agreement transactions on Treasury securities. The Board is inviting public comment to assist the Federal Reserve in considering and developing this proposal.
Comments must be received by October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OP—1573, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at
David Bowman, Associate Director, (202-452-2334), Division of International Finance; or Christopher W. Clubb, Special Counsel (202-452-3904), Evan Winerman, Counsel (202-872-7578), Legal Division; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202-263-4869).
FRBNY, in cooperation with the U.S. Office of Financial Research (OFR), is considering publishing three rates based on overnight repurchase agreement
The U.S. Treasury securities market is the deepest and most liquid government securities market in the world. It plays a critical and unique role in the global economy, serving as a means of financing the U.S. federal government, a significant investment instrument and hedging vehicle for global investors, a risk-free benchmark for other financial instruments, and an important market for the Federal Reserve's implementation of monetary policy.
Treasury repos are critically important for the U.S. financial system and for the implementation of monetary policy. A repo transaction is the sale of a security, or a portfolio of securities, combined with an agreement to repurchase the security or portfolio on a specified future date at a prearranged price.
The market for Treasury repos includes a “tri-party” segment (a submarket of which is executed through the GCF Repo® service offered by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (FICC)) and a bilateral segment. All tri-party repos—and some bilateral repos—are made against a pool of “general” collateral rather than specific securities. In a general collateral (GC) repo, the cash provider stipulates a population of acceptable collateral (
In a tri-party repo, a clearing bank is used to facilitate the clearing and settlement of the transaction by managing the securities and ensuring that the securities adhere to the cash provider's eligibility requirements (as noted above, all repo transactions currently conducted over tri-party repo platforms are GC repos). Tri-party repos settle on the books of the clearing bank, where cash and securities are transferred between the cash provider's and securities provider's respective accounts. Among the most prominent cash providers in this segment are money market mutual funds and cash collateral reinvestment accounts managed for securities lenders, while the primary securities providers are securities dealers. Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) and JPMorgan Chase (JPMC) currently serve as the two clearing banks in the tri-party repo market. JPMC announced in July 2016 that it plans to exit government securities settlement for broker-dealers by the end of 2018. After 2018, BNYM may become the sole clearing bank in the tri-party repo market for Treasury securities.
The tri-party Treasury repo market is important because it provides market liquidity and price transparency for U.S. government securities and thereby fosters stable financing costs for the U.S. government. It also serves as a critical source of funding for many systemically important broker-dealers that make markets in U.S. government securities. The tri-party repo market interconnects with other payment, clearing, and settlement services that are central to U.S. financial markets.
Currently, information available to the public about rates of return in the market for tri-party Treasury repos is limited. Pursuant to the Board's supervisory authority, however, the FRBNY collects trade-by-trade data on tri-party Treasury repo transactions on a daily basis from the two clearing banks. This data set includes: the interest rate of the transaction; the parties to the transaction; information on the collateral that may be pledged in the transaction; the type of transaction; the date the transaction is initiated; the date the transaction becomes effective; the date the transaction matures; whether the transaction is open-ended (
GCF Repo, introduced by FICC in 1998, permits FICC's netting members to trade cash and securities among themselves based on negotiated rates and terms. GCF Repo trades are completed on an anonymous basis through interdealer brokers and settle on the two clearing banks' tri-party repo platforms. FICC acts as a central counterparty in GCF Repo, serving as the legal counterparty to each side of the repo transaction for settlement purposes. GCF Repo is designed as a general collateral repo service, where FICC defines the set of permissible collateral classes.
Securities dealers currently rely on GCF Repo transactions for a variety of functions, including raising funds and seeking securities to fulfill tri-party repo obligations. FRBNY has entered into an agreement with DTCC Solutions LLC (DTCC Solutions), an affiliate of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), to obtain data regarding GCF Repo transactions.
Unlike the tri-party repo market, in the bilateral repo market, counterparties instruct their custodians to exchange cash and securities without the use of a third party to manage collateral and facilitate centralized settlement. In order to effect settlement, the parties identify specific securities for their custodians to transfer. As a result, the bilateral repo market can be used to temporarily acquire specific securities (referred to as specific-issue collateral). Depending on the individual market for each security, repos for specific-issue collateral can take place at much lower rates than GC trades, as cash providers may be willing
Bilateral repo transactions fall into two segments: Bilateral repo cleared through FICC's Delivery-versus-Payment (DVP) service and non-cleared bilateral repo. Repos cleared through FICC's DVP service are similar to GCF Repo in that they both allow for clearing in interdealer repo markets and both novate transactions to FICC. GCF repos, however, are exclusively blind brokered, while DVP repos can be blind brokered or directly negotiated. Non-cleared bilateral repo transactions are conducted entirely outside the services offered by FICC and do not settle on the clearing banks' tri-party repo platforms, and detailed information about that segment is not currently available.
FRBNY has entered into an agreement with DTCC Solutions to obtain data regarding FICC-cleared Treasury bilateral repo transactions. This data set includes: the interest rate of the transaction; information on the specific collateral that is pledged in the transaction; the date the transaction is initiated; the value of funds borrowed in the transaction; and an indicator differentiating between repos and reverse repos in relation to the central counterparty.
In order to provide the public with more information regarding the interest rates associated with repo transactions, the FRBNY proposes to publish interest rate statistics for overnight Treasury repos. As described below, the FRBNY proposes to publish three different rates.
This rate would measure the rate of return available on overnight repo transactions against Treasury securities in the tri-party repo market, excluding GCF Repo and transactions in which the Federal Reserve is a counterparty.
This rate would provide a broader measure of rates on overnight Treasury GC repo transactions. As currently envisioned, the FRBNY would calculate the rate based on the same transaction-level tri-party data collected from BNYM as in the TGCR plus GCF Repo data obtained from DTCC Solutions as described above. This rate would therefore reflect both dealer-to-customer and interdealer repos. By including data from different tri-party platforms, this rate would represent a broader, more diverse transaction set than the first rate, resulting in greater resiliency to market evolution. However, idiosyncratic pricing behavior over month- and quarter-ends in the GCF Repo transaction base could result in divergence from other money market rates depending on relative volume in the GCF Repo market.
This rate would be the broadest measure of rates on overnight Treasury financing transactions by also including bilateral Treasury repo transactions cleared through FICC's DVP service, filtered to remove some (but not all) transactions considered “specials.”
The FRBNY proposes to use a volume-weighted median as the central tendency measure for each of the three Treasury repo rates described above. While the volume-weighted mean, median, and trimmed mean would be similar to each other based on historical data, the median is more resistant to erroneous data, and would be consistent with the methodology used for the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR) and Overnight Bank Funding Rate (OBFR).
The target publication time for the three rates and their summary statistics would be each morning at 8:30 ET. The repo rates would only be revised on a same-day basis, and only if the updated data would result in a shift in the volume-weighted median by more than one basis point. Such revisions, which should be a rare occurrence, would be effected that same day at or around 2:30 ET and would result in a republication of updated summary statistics. In the event the previously noted data sources were unavailable, the rates would be calculated based upon back-up repo market survey data collected each morning from FRBNY's primary dealer counterparties. FRBNY may decide to revise the summary statistics or publish additional summary statistics on a lagged basis.
For each rate, FRBNY would exclude trades between affiliated entities when relevant and the data to make such exclusions are available. To the extent possible, “open” trades for which pricing resets daily (making such transactions economically similar to overnight transactions) would be included in the calculation of the rates. The inclusion of these open transactions is intended to ensure that the proposed rates incorporate all relevant transactions, and will mitigate risks around potential changes in market practice. Each of the rates could be modified in the future in response to market evolution or to incorporate additional market segments if data become available.
To assist the Board in considering the production of the proposed rates, the
1. Would the proposed rates be useful to market participants, researchers, or others? For what purpose(s)?
2. Are one or more of the proposed rates more likely to be useful than the other(s)? For what purpose(s)?
3. Are there changes to one or more of the rates that would make them more useful? For what purpose(s)?
4. Are there particular sources of data or data sets that should be incorporated in the calculation of the rates that would make the rates more useful to the public?
5. Are there changes that should be made to the proposed manner of calculating and publishing the three rates?
6. Is the proposed time of publication early enough to facilitate the use of the rates for various purposes?
7. Is the use of the volume-weighted median appropriate? Is there a different measure of the central tendency of the distribution of individual transacted rates that would be better suited? For what purpose(s)?
8. Are the proposed summary statistics useful to the market? For what purposes? Would other summary statistics be more useful to accompany the daily publication, instead of or in addition to those proposed?
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320, Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the proposal under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. For purposes of calculating burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a “collection of information” involves 10 or more respondents. As noted above, the data to be used to produce the proposed rates will be obtained solely from (1) BNYM with respect to tri-party GC repo data and (2) DTCC Solutions with respect to GCF repo data and DVP bilateral repo data. Therefore, no collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act is contemplated by the proposed rate production at this time.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
Proposed amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List.
The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) seeks public and Tribal comment on a proposal to amend its Initial Funded Priorities List (FPL) to approve implementation funding for the Robinson Preserve Wetlands Restoration project (Robinson Preserve), Florida. The Council is proposing to approve $1,319,636 in implementation funding for Robinson Preserve. The Council is also proposing to reallocate $470,910 from planning to implementation. The total amount of funding available for implementation of Robinson Preserve would be $1,790,546. These funds would be used to restore 118.2 acres of coastal habitat, along with related activities in Tampa Bay. The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the sponsor of the Robinson Preserve project.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws, the Council is proposing to adopt an existing
Comments on this proposed amendment are due September 29, 2017.
Comments on this proposed amendment may be submitted as follows:
Please send questions by email to
The
On December 9, 2015, the Council approved the FPL, which includes projects and programs approved for funding under the Council-Selected
The Council reserved approximately $26.6 million for implementing priority activities in the future. These reserved funds may be used to support some, all or none of the activities included in Category 2 of the FPL and/or to support other activities not currently under consideration by the Council. As appropriate, the Council intends to review each activity in Category 2 in order to determine whether to: (1) Move the activity to Category 1 and approve it for funding, (2) remove it from Category 2 and any further consideration, or (3) continue to include it in Category 2. A Council decision to amend the FPL to move an activity from Category 2 into Category 1 must be approved by a Council vote after consideration of public and Tribal comments.
Prior to approving an activity for funding in FPL Category 1, the Council must comply with NEPA and other applicable Federal environmental laws. At the time of approval of the FPL, the Council had not addressed NEPA and other laws applicable to implementation of Robinson Preserve. The Council did, however, recognize the potential ecological value of Robinson Preserve, based on the review conducted during the FPL process. For this reason, the Council approved $470,910 in planning funds for Robinson Preserve, a portion of which would be used to complete any needed environmental compliance activities. As noted above, the Council placed the implementation portion of Robinson Preserve into FPL Category 2, pending the outcome of this environmental compliance work and further Council review. The estimated cost of implementation of Robinson Preserve was $1,319,636.
To comply with NEPA for Robinson Preserve, the Council is proposing to adopt the
On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit for the Robinson Preserve project. NOAA has confirmed that this permit addresses its Magnuson-Stevens Act recommendations pertaining to Essential Fish Habitat. The permit also contains conditions pertaining to compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have reviewed the overall Robinson Preserve project. These reviews were conducted as part of their respective reviews of a smaller Robinson Preserve restoration project which is sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is being funded separately under the Council-Selected Restoration Component.
The Council has reviewed the aforementioned environmental compliance documentation. Based on this review, the Council is proposing to adopt the PEIS to support the approval of implementation funds for Robinson Preserve, provided that the project is implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the CWA Section 404 permit. This permit and the associated documentation can be found here:
If approved by the Council, the funds to implement Robinson Preserve would be used to create habitat and natural flow regimes through hydrologic connections, as well as complete exotic and invasive vegetation removal, native planting, monitoring, community outreach, restoration practitioner education, and an inventory of potential Tampa Bay watershed hydrologic restoration projects.
The Initial FPL describes Robinson Preserve as a project to restore 140-acres of upland and wetland habitat (85 acres of upland habitat and 55 acres of created wetland and sub-tidal habitats). The actual acreage to be restored under this proposed FPL amendment would be 118.2 acres (57.6 acres of coastal upland habitat and 60.6 acres of wetland, open water sub-tidal, and open freshwater habitats). This acreage adjustment is the result of refinements in project design (in response to public input) and subtraction of acreage being restored through the complementary EPA restoration effort referenced above. The project design was reduced by 7 acres to balance public access interests, input from nearby residents and habitat suitability. The remainder of the acreage adjustment for this Robinson Preserve funding request is 14.8 acres, which is the amount of adjoining acreage that will be restored by the EPA.
While the acreage footprint of NOAA's Robinson Preserve project has decreased, the complexity and per unit cost of the project have increased. To maintain the long-term viability of the restoration design and protect existing habitats, the scope of the hydrologic restoration expanded to include more complex connections. The expanded scope also provides added benefits outside of the restoration footprint by integrating and hydrologically interconnecting the entire 632-acre preserve. NOAA has indicated that these changes, make up more than one third of the restoration implementation budget, increasing the wetland and sub-tidal creation cost per acre for the project. The total of $1,790,546 will be needed to implement this project.
Additional information on Robinson Preserve, including metrics of success, response to science reviews and more is available in an activity-specific appendix to the FPL, which can be found at
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 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 comment on the proposed request to extend the information collect project titled “Assessment of Chemical Exposures (ACE) Investigations.” The purpose of ACE Investigations is to focus on performing rapid epidemiological assessments to assist state, regional, local, or tribal health departments (the requesting agencies) to respond to or prepare for acute chemical releases.
Written comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2017-0004 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
Assessment of Chemical Exposures (ACE) Investigations (OMB Control Number 0923-0051; expiration 3/31/2018)—Revision—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is requesting to revise “Assessment of Chemical Exposures (ACE) Investigations” information collection project and seek a three-year OMB approval to assist state and local health departments after toxic substance spills or chemical incidents. The OMB Control number for this information collection expires 3/31/2018. We are renaming the form previously titled the Rapid Response Registry Form as the ACE Short Form. This revision better describes that we use the ACE Short Form in time-limited investigations where longer surveys are not possible. We do not use the form to establish registries. In addition, we are removing two insurance questions from the ACE Short Form, as we do not ask in the longer surveys and have never been asked as part of an ACE Investigation. There are no changes to the requested burden hours.
ATSDR has successfully completed three investigations to date. With the uses of this valuable mechanism, ATSDR would like to continue this impactful information collection. See below a brief summary of information collections approved under this tool:
• During 2015, in U.S. Virgin Islands there was a methyl bromide exposure at a condominium resort. Under this ACE investigation, awareness among pest control companies that methyl bromide currently prohibited in the homes and other residential settings. Additionally, awareness for clinicians about the toxicologic syndrome caused by exposure to methyl bromide and the importance of notifying first responders immediately when they have encountered contaminated patients.
• During 2016, ACE team conducted a rash investigation in Flint, Michigan. Persons exposed to Flint municipal water and had current or worsening rashes surveyed and referred too free dermatologist screening if desired. Findings revealed that when the city was using water from the Flint River, there were large swings in chorine, pH, and hardness, which could be one possible explanation for the eczema-related rashes.
• During 2016, ACE team also conducted a follow-up investigation for people whom been exposed to the Flint municipal water and sought care from the free dermatologists. Data analysis for this project is in process and results are pending. However, the follow-up interviews resulted in improving the exam and referral processes that were still on going at the time.
The ACE investigations focus on performing rapid epidemiological assessments to assist state, regional, local, or tribal health departments (the requesting agencies) to respond to or prepare for acute chemical releases.
The main objectives for performing these rapid assessments are to:
1. Characterize exposure and acute health effects of respondents exposed to toxic substances from discrete, chemical
2. Identify needs (
3. Assess the impact of the incidents on health services use and share lessons learned for use in hospital, local, and state planning for chemical incidents; and
4. Identify cohorts may be followed and assessed for persistent health effects resulting from acute releases.
Because each chemical incident is different, it is not possible to predict in advance exactly what type of and how many respondents will be consented and interviewed too effectively evaluate the incident. Respondents typically include, but are not limited to emergency responders such as police, fire, hazardous material technicians, emergency medical services, and personnel at hospitals where patients from the incident were treated. Incidents may occur at businesses or in the community setting; therefore, respondents may also include business owners, managers, workers, customers, community residents, pet owners, and those passing through the affected area.
The multidisciplinary ACE team consisting of staff from ATSDR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the requesting agencies that will be collecting data. ATSDR has developed a quickly tailored series of draft survey forms used in the field to collect data that will meet the goals of the investigation. ATSDR collections will be administered based on time permitted and urgency. For example, it is preferable to administer the general survey to as many respondents as possible. However, if there are time constraints, the shorter household survey or the ACE Short Form may be administered instead. The individual surveys collect information about exposure, acute health effects, health services use, medical history, needs resulting from the incident, communication during the release, health impact on children and pets, and demographic data. Hospital personnel are asked about the surge, response and communication, decontamination, and lessons learned.
Depending on the situation, data collected by face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, written surveys, mailed surveys, or on-line surveys can be consider collected. Medical and veterinary charts may also be consider for review. In rare situations, an investigation might involve collection of clinical specimens.
ATSDR anticipates up to four ACE investigations per year. The number of participants has ranged from 30-715, averaging about 300 per year. Therefore, the total annualized estimated burden will be 591 hours per year. Participation in ACE investigations is voluntary and there are no anticipated costs to respondents other than their time.
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 comment on the proposed project titled “ZEN Colombia Study: Zika in Pregnant Women and Children in Colombia.”
Written comments must be received on or before October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0073 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
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
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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
ZEN Colombia Study: Zika in Pregnant Women and Children in Colombia, (OMB No. 0920-1190, expires 07/31/2019)—Revision—Pregnancy and Birth Defects Task Force, National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Zika virus (ZIKV) infection is a mosquito-borne flavivirus transmitted by
Health officials observed sporadic evidence of human ZIKV infection in Africa and Asia prior to 2007, when an outbreak of ZIKV caused an estimated 5,000 infections in the State of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia. Since then, health officials have found evidence of ZIKV in 65 countries and territories, mostly in Central and South America.
Common symptoms of ZIKV in humans include rash, fever, arthralgia, and nonpurulent conjunctivitis. The illness is usually mild and self-limited, with symptoms lasting for several days to a week; however, based on previous outbreaks, some infections are asymptomatic. The prevalence of asymptomatic infection in the current Central and South American epidemic is unknown.
Although the clinical presentation of ZIKV infection is typically mild, ZIKV infection in pregnancy can cause microcephaly and related brain abnormalities when fetuses are exposed
As the spectrum of adverse health outcomes potentially related to ZIKV infection continues to grow, large gaps remain in our understanding of ZIKV infection in pregnancy. These include the full spectrum of adverse health outcomes in pregnant women, fetuses, and infants associated with ZIKV infection; the relative contributions of sexual transmission and mosquito-borne transmission to occurrence of infections in pregnancy; and variability in the risk of adverse fetal outcomes by gestational week of maternal infection or symptoms of infection. There is an urgency to fill these large gaps in our understanding given the rapidity of the epidemic's spread and the severe health outcomes associated with ZIKV to date.
Colombia's Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS) began surveillance for ZIKV in 2015, reporting the first autochthonous transmission in October 2015 in the north of the country. As of December 2016, Colombia has reported over 106,000-suspected ZIKV cases, with over 19,000 of them among pregnant women. With a causal link established between ZIKV infection in pregnancy and microcephaly, there is an urgent need to understand: How to prevent ZIKV transmission; the full spectrum of adverse maternal, fetal, and infant health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection; and risk factors for occurrence of these outcomes. To answer these questions, INS and the CDC will follow 5,000 women enrolled in the first trimester of pregnancy, their male partners, and their infants, in various cities in Colombia where ZIKV transmission is currently ongoing.
The primary study objectives are to: (1) Describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the study population; (2) Identify risk factors for ZIKV infection in pregnant women and their infants. These include behaviors such as use of mosquito-bite prevention measures or condoms, and factors associated with maternal-to-child transmission; (3) Assess the risk for adverse maternal, fetal, and infant outcomes associated with ZIKV infection; (4) Assess modifiers of the risk for adverse outcomes among pregnant women and their infants following ZIKV infection. This includes investigating associations with gestational age at infection, presence of ZIKV symptoms, extended viremia, mode of transmission, prior infections or immunizations, and co-infections.
The project aims to enroll approximately 5,000 women, 1,250 male partners, 4,500 newborns, and a subset of 1000 infants/children. Pregnant women will be recruited in the first trimester of pregnancy for study enrollment, followed by assessments during pregnancy (every other week until 32 weeks gestation and monthly thereafter), and within 10 days postpartum. At all visits, participants will complete visit-specific questionnaires. In addition to the questionnaires, at all pregnancy and delivery visits, participants will receive Colombian national recommended clinical care and provide samples for laboratory testing.
Researchers will recruit male partners around the time of the pregnant partners' study enrollment, followed by monthly visits until his pregnant partner reaches the third trimester (approximately 27 weeks gestation). If the male partner contracts ZIKV during this time, visits will occur every other week until the partner has two negative consecutive tests for ZIKV or the pregnancy ends. At all study visits, male partners will complete visit-specific
Researchers will follow all study-participating mothers' newborns every other week from birth to 6 months of age. At all visits, infants will receive national recommended clinical care (at birth and follow-up visits at 1, 2, and 6 months), provide samples for laboratory testing, and mothers will complete study-specific questionnaires about infant ZIKV symptoms and developmental milestones. During follow-up, infants will also have cranial ultrasounds, their head circumference measured, and hearing and vision tests. For mothers and their infants, researchers will abstract relevant clinical care information from medical records.
The revised information collection package includes the following changes. During the data collection period, researchers will follow a subset of 300 infants until 2-years of age. These infants will have answer questionnaires at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, as well as have other clinical assessments performed to exam developmental delays.
Researchers will use the study results use to guide recommendations made by both INS and CDC to prevent ZIKV infection; to improve counseling of patients about risks to themselves, their pregnancies, their partners, and their infants; and to help agencies prepare to provide services to affected children and families. Participation in this study is voluntary and there are no costs to participants other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
National Disease Surveillance Program II. Disease Summaries (OMB Control Number 0920-0004, Expires 10/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC requests a three-year approval for the proposed revision of the “National Disease Surveillance Program II. Disease Summaries” information collection project.
As with the previous approval, these data are essential for measuring trends in diseases, evaluating the effectiveness of current preventive strategies, and determining the need to modify current preventive measures.
Diseases included in this surveillance program are Influenza Virus, Caliciviruses, Respiratory and Enteric Viruses, Foodborne Outbreaks, Waterborne Outbreaks and Enteroviruses.
Proposed revisions include form consolidation, minor revised language and rewording to improve clarity and readability of the data collection forms and the discontinuation of multiple previously approved influenza collection instruments, and the National Respiratory & Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) Laboratory Assessment (CDC 55.83). CDC also requests the use of a new form, Suspect Respiratory Virus Patient Form, to assist health departments and clinical sites when they submit specimens to the CDC lab for viral pathogen identification. The data will enable rapid detection and characterization of outbreaks of known pathogens, as well as potential newly emerging viral pathogens.
The frequency of response for each form will depend on the disease and surveillance need. This represents a 7,116 burden hour reduction since last approval. This reduction in burden hours is attributed primarily to the discontinuation of previously approved forms and formatting changes to existing forms. The total time burden estimate for all collection instruments in this revision request is 24,805.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 29, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
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. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
The CAH conditions of participation and accompanying information collection requirements specified in the regulations are used by surveyors as a basis for determining whether a CAH meets the requirements to participate in the Medicare program. We, along with the healthcare industry, believe that the availability to the facility of the type of records and general content of records, which this regulation specifies, is standard medical practice and is necessary in order to ensure the well-being and safety of patients and professional treatment accountability.
OMB previously approved data collection under OMB Control Number 0970-0462 for: The HPOG 2.0 National and Tribal Evaluation (Approved August 2015); and the National Evaluation impact study, the National Evaluation descriptive study, and the Tribal Evaluation (All approved June 2017). The proposed data collection activities described in this
This Notice provides the opportunity to comment on a proposed new information collection activity for the HPOG 2.0 National Evaluation's impact study—the HPOG 2.0 Impact Evaluation first follow-up survey. The first follow-up survey of both treatment and control group members will be administered approximately 15 months after baseline data collection and random assignment. The survey will collect data about key outcomes of interest, including participants' tenure and experience in HPOG programming, certifications and educational achievements, job placement, and benefits. These are the key outcomes of interest for which data are not otherwise available through existing data sources. Previously approved collection activities under 0970-0462 will continue under this new request for the National Evaluation of the non-tribal grantees.
In subsequent requests for clearance, we will submit (1) additional data collection instruments to support the descriptive study of the 27 non-tribal grantees participating in the HPOG 2.0 National Evaluation, including grantee interview guides and participant interview guides; and (2) the second follow-up survey for the HPOG 2.0 National Evaluation impact study. The second follow-up survey is for collecting data from both treatment and control group members at the 27 non-tribal grantees, approximately 36 months after baseline data collection and random assignment. This submission will also include data collection necessary for the National Evaluation's cost benefit analysis.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services, is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded in writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments 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; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a draft revised guidance for industry on generic digoxin tablets entitled “Draft Guidance on Digoxin.” The guidance, once finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for digoxin tablets.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft revised guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft revised guidance by October 30, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft revised guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on the guidances. This notice announces the availability of a draft revised product-specific guidance for generic digoxin tablets.
FDA initially approved new drug application (NDA) 020405 for LANOXIN (digoxin tablets) in September 1997. In May 2008, we issued a final guidance for industry on generic digoxin tablets. We are now issuing a draft revised guidance for industry on generic digoxin tablets (“Draft Guidance on Digoxin”).
In December 2015, Concordia Pharmaceuticals submitted a citizen petition requesting, among other things, that FDA amend the guidance for industry on BE recommendations for generic digoxin tablets issued in 2008. FDA has reviewed the issues raised in the citizen petition and is responding to the citizen petition (Docket No. FDA-2015-P-4566, available at
This draft revised guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft revised guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the design of BE studies to support ANDAs for digoxin tablets. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft revised guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for XTORO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product XTORO (finafloxacin). XTORO is indicated for treatment of acute otitis externa caused by susceptible strains of
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for XTORO is 1,880 days. Of this time, 1,643 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 237 days occurred during the
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,058 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is withdrawing approval of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for PROPRANOLOL HYDROCHLORIDE Extended-Release Capsules, held by Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (Upsher-Smith), 6701 Evenstad Dr., Maple Grove, MN 55369. Upsher-Smith has voluntarily requested that approval of this application be withdrawn and has waived its opportunity for a hearing.
August 30, 2017.
Stefanie Kraus, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6215, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9585.
On March 6, 2009, FDA approved abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) 078311 for PROPRANOLOL HYDROCHLORIDE Extended-Release Capsules, USP, 60 milligrams (mg), 80 mg, 120 mg, and 160 mg. In a letter dated August 9, 2011, FDA informed Upsher-Smith that it had concerns about the validity of bioequivalence data submitted with ANDA 078311 from studies conducted by a certain contract research organization, establishing bioequivalence of Upsher-Smith's product to the reference listed drug (RLD), INDERAL LA (propranolol hydrochloride) Extended Release Capsules, 60 mg, 80 mg, 120 mg, and 160 mg. In that letter, FDA directed Upsher-Smith to supplement its ANDA with either: (1) New bioequivalence studies or (2) re-assays of the samples from the original bioequivalence studies. Upsher-Smith submitted new fasted and fed bioequivalence studies to supplement ANDA 078311 in paper format on August 29, 2013, and in electronic format on May 9, 2014.
On April 14, 2016, FDA informed Upsher-Smith that the applicant's fed bioequivalence study failed to meet FDA's bioequivalence criteria and, therefore, requested that Upsher-Smith voluntarily seek withdrawal of ANDA 078311 under § 314.150(d) (21 CFR 314.150(d)).
In a letter dated May 13, 2016, Upsher-Smith requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANDA 078311 for PROPRANOLOL HYDROCHLORIDE Extended-Release Capsules under § 314.150(d) because the new bioequivalence data did not demonstrate therapeutic equivalence of its product to the RLD, INDERAL LA. In that letter, Upsher-Smith also waived any opportunity for a hearing otherwise provided under § 314.150(a).
Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and § 314.150(d), and under authority delegated by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, approval of ANDA 078311, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is withdrawn (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that CENESTIN (estrogens, conjugated synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 milligrams (mg), 0.45 mg, 0.625 mg, 0.9
Bronwen Blass, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, Rm. 6228, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5092.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
CENESTIN (estrogens, conjugated synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, 0.625 mg, 0.9 mg, and 1.25 mg, is the subject of NDA 020992, held by Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. (Teva), and was initially approved on March 24, 1999. CENESTIN is indicated for treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause and treatment of moderate to severe symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy due to menopause.
In 2016, Teva notified FDA that CENESTIN (estrogens, conjugated synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, 0.625 mg, 0.9 mg, and 1.25 mg, were being discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Foley & Lardner submitted a citizen petition dated March 8, 2017 (Docket No. FDA-2017-P-1461), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether CENESTIN (estrogens, conjugated synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, 0.625 mg, 0.9 mg, and 1.25 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that CENESTIN (estrogens, conjugated synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, 0.625 mg, 0.9 mg, and 1.25 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that these products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of these products from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that these drug products were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list CENESTIN (estrogens, conjugated synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, 0.625 mg, 0.9 mg, and 1.25 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to CENESTIN (estrogens, conjugated synthetic A) Tablets, 0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, 0.625 mg, 0.9 mg, and 1.25 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for KENGREAL and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 30, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and 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
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product KENGREAL (cangrelor tetrasodium). KENGREAL is indicated as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention for reducing the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stent thrombosis in patients who have not been treated with a P2Y
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for KENGREAL is 6,122 days. Of this time, 5,338 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 784 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that a meeting is scheduled for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment. This meeting will be open to the public. Information about the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment and the agenda for this meeting can be obtained by contacting CDR Holly Berilla at (301) 443-9965 or
October 25, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern) and October 26, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. (Eastern).
This meeting will be held in person and offer virtual access through teleconference and Adobe Connect. The address for the meeting is 5600 Fishers Lane, Pavilion, Rockville, Maryland 20857. The conference call-in number is (888) 469-0566 and passcode is 6012320. The webinar link is
Those requesting information regarding the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment should contact CDR Holly Berilla, Senior Public Health Analyst, Division of Policy and Data (DPD), HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB), HRSA, in one of three ways: (1) Mail a request to CDR Holly Berilla, Senior Public Health Analyst, HRSA/HAB/DPD, 5600 Fishers Lane, 9N164C, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 443-9965; or (3) send an email to
The CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment was established under Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. Section 217a], as amended.
The purpose of the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment is to advise the Secretary of HHS, the Director of CDC, and the Administrator of HRSA regarding objectives, strategies, policies, and priorities for HIV, viral hepatitis, and other STDs; prevention and treatment efforts including surveillance of HIV infection, AIDS, viral hepatitis and other STDs, and related behaviors; epidemiologic, behavioral, health services, and laboratory research on HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, and other STDs; identification of policy issues related to HIV/viral hepatitis/STD professional education, patient healthcare delivery, and prevention services; HHS policies about prevention of HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and other STDs; treatment, healthcare delivery, and research and training; strategic issues influencing the ability of CDC and HRSA to fulfill their missions of providing prevention and treatment services; programmatic efforts to prevent and treat HIV, viral hepatitis, and other STDs; and support to CDC and HRSA in their development of responses to emerging health needs related to HIV, viral hepatitis, and other STDs.
During the October 25 to 26, 2017, meeting, the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment will discuss strategies to link, retain, and re-engage people living with HIV into the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program system of care; HAB's benchmarking and risk adjustment initiatives; HRSA and CDC initiatives regarding congenital syphilis; and committee workgroup reports. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the CDC/HRSA Advisory Committee on HIV, Viral Hepatitis and STD Prevention and Treatment should be sent to CDR Holly Berilla, using the contact information listed above, by October 11, 2017.
The building at 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, requires a security screening on entry. To facilitate your access to the building please contact CDR Holly Berilla (contact information provided above). Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify CDR Holly Berilla (contact information provided above) at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 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.
This notice is being amended to reflect changes in open and closed sessions.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to 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 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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Pediatrics Subcommittee, October 12, 2017, 08:30 a.m. to October 12, 2017, 05:00 p.m. Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD., 20814 which was published in the
The meeting has changed from October 12, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to October 13, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee and its subcommittees will meet in Washington, DC, to discuss committee matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials. These meetings will be open to the public.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee subcommittees will meet on Tuesday, October 3, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The full committee will meet on Thursday, October 5, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that these meetings may close early if the committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-6509.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternated Designated Federal Official as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the
Lieutenant Jake Lobb, Alternate Designated Federal Official of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1428, fax 202-372-8380, or
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is established under the authority of Section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451. This Committee is established in accordance with and operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix).
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard on matters concerning the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials, including industry outreach approaches. The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee will respond to specific assignments and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and seminars as the Commandant may authorize or direct.
The subcommittee meetings will separately address the following tasks:
(1) Task Statement 13-03: Safety Standards for the Design of Vessels Carrying Natural Gas or Using Natural Gas as Fuel.
(2) Task Statement 15-01: Marine Vapor Control System Certifying Entities Guidelines update and Vapor Control System supplementary guidance for the implementation of the final rule.
(3) Task Statement 17-01: Hazardous Substance Response Plans for Tank Vessels and Facilities.
(4) Task Statement 16-01: Hazardous Cargo Transportation Security Subcommittee.
(5) Task Statement 17-02: Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
The task statements from the last committee meeting are located at Homeport at the following address:
The agenda for each subcommittee will include the following:
1. Review subcommittee task statements.
2. Work on tasks assigned in task statements mentioned above.
3. Public comment period.
4. Discuss and prepare any proposed recommendations for the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meeting on October 5, 2017, on tasks assigned in detailed task statements mentioned above.
The agenda for the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meeting on October 5, 2017, is as follows:
1. Introductions and opening remarks.
2. Swear in newly appointed Committee members, and thank outgoing members.
3. Thank you letter presentation for the Vapor Control Subcommittee.
4. Review of March 2, 2017, meeting minutes and status of task items.
5. Coast Guard Leadership Remarks.
6. Chairman and Designated Federal Official remarks.
7. Committee will review, discuss, and formulate recommendations on the following items:
a. Task Statement 13-03: Safety Standards for the Design of Vessels Carrying Natural Gas or Using Natural Gas as Fuel.
b. Task Statement 15-01: Marine Vapor Control System (Certifying Entities Guidelines update and vapor control System supplementary guidance for the implementation of the final rule).
c. Task Statement 16-01: Hazardous Cargo Transportation Security Subcommittee.
d. Task Statement 17-01: Hazardous Substance Response Plans for Tank Vessels and Facilities.
e. Task Statement 17-02: Input to Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations—Executive Orders 13771 and 13783.
8. United States Coast Guard update on International Maritime Organization activities as they relate to the marine transportation of hazardous materials.
9. Presentation of interest related to safe and secure shipment of hazardous materials.
10. New business and subcommittee recommendation discussion.
11. Set next meeting date and location.
12. Set subcommittee meeting schedule.
13. Public comment period.
14. Adjournment of meeting.
A public comment period will be held during each Subcommittee and the full committee meeting concerning matters being discussed. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual listed in the
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., 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 September 15, 2016.
The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 15, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2019.
Christopher J. Mocella, 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., 725 Oakridge Dr., Romeoville, IL 60446, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before September 29, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2023; facsimile 703-358-2280.
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests authorization to import salvaged specimens of the following species from Madagascar for the purpose of scientific research: Black lemur (
The applicant requests to amend and renew a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to list the dwarf crocodile (
The following applicants each request a permit to import sport-hunted trophies of a male bontebok (
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
We will post all hardcopy comments on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey is proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 29, 2017.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Elizabeth S. Sangine by email at
We, the U.S. Geological Survey, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
We are again soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, in 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, upon required payment.
Timothy A. Quincy, (208) 373-3981 Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho, 83709-1657. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with Mr. Quincy. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho, Bureau of Land Management. The protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest and contain all reasons and evidence in support of the protest. The protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a protest will be considered filed the next business day. If a protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend the duration of the withdrawal created by Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7296 for an additional 20-year term subject to valid existing rights. PLO No. 7296 withdrew approximately 2,489.40 acres of
Comments and public meeting requests must be received by November 28, 2017.
Comments and public meeting requests should be sent to State Director, BLM, New Mexico State Office, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502.
Jeanette Martinez, BLM New Mexico State Office, 505-954-2040, or via email at
The USFS has filed an application requesting that the Secretary of the Interior extend the withdrawal created by PLO 7396 (62 FR 63380 (1997)) for an additional 20-year term. PLO 7296 withdrew approximately 2,432.40 acres of National Forest System land from mining to protect the scientific values associated with the continued operation of the Sacramento Peak Observatory. Subsequent surveys of unsurveyed sections 28 and 33 revealed the area subject to the withdrawal contains 2,489.40 acres and is now described as follows:
T. 17 S., R. 11. E., sec. 26, SW
The area described contains 2,489.40 acres in Otero County. This legal description is identical in size, shape, and location as the description in PLO No. 7296, as published in the
The purpose of the proposed extension is to ensure the continued protection of the scientific value of the Sacramento Peak Observatory. This includes the protection of the area from pollution, dust, vibration, and light that would interfere with the operation of the highly sensitive components of the Observatory.
No suitable alternative sites exist as the infrastructure investments of the SPO are in place at the optimal position for the type of activity ongoing at this site. The use of a right-of-way, interagency agreement, or cooperative agreement would not provide adequate protection.
The USFS would not need to acquire additional water rights to fulfill the purpose of the requested extension.
Records pertaining to the extension application can be examined by contacting Jeanette Martinez in the BLM New Mexico State Office at the address or phone number shown above.
For a period until November 28, 2017, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the withdrawal extension application may present their views in writing to the BLM New Mexico State Director at the address indicated above. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed above during regular business hours. Be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is offered in connection with the withdrawal extension application. All interested parties who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the withdrawal extension application must submit a written request to the BLM New Mexico State Director at the address indicated above by November 28, 2017. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the
The withdrawal extension application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Tonto National Forest, has completed an inventory of unassociated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the unassociated 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 cultural items should submit a written request to the Tonto National Forest. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated 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 cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Tonto National Forest at the address in this notice by September 29, 2017.
Neil Bosworth, Tonto National Forest, 2324 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85206, telephone (602) 225-5201, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Tonto
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 unassociated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Prior to 1990, 11 unassociated funerary objects were removed from Six Shooter Canyon in Gila County, AZ. The unassociated funerary objects were donated to the Grand Canyon Museum and then transferred to the Tonto National Forest on December 29, 2016. The 11 unassociated funerary objects are three shell bracelets, three shell rings, and five turquoise tessera pieces. A detailed assessment of the unassociated funerary objects was made by the Tonto National Forest professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, who submitted a repatriation claim for the cultural items.
In accordance with the Plan for the Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Other Cultural Items from the Tonto National Forest Pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (as revised in 2001), it has been determined that the primary cultural affiliation of these unassociated funerary objects is with the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona.
Officials of the Tonto National Forest have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 11 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 unassociated funerary objects and the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona.
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 unassociated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Neil Bosworth, Tonto National Forest, 2324 E McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85206, telephone (602) 225-5201, email
The Tonto National Forest is responsible for notifying the Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona); Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; and the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Science Museum of Minnesota, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Science Museum of Minnesota. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items 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 claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Science Museum of Minnesota at the address in this notice by September 29, 2017.
Edward Fleming, Science Museum of Minnesota, 120 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102, telephone (651) 221-4576, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, that meet the definition of sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
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 cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In July of 1958, two cultural items were removed from the Nett Lake region in Koochiching and St. Louis Counties, MN. Karen Peterson, a Science Museum of Minnesota affiliate, purchased the items on the Museum's behalf. One item, a drum, was purchased from Mrs. Ray Drift. The other item, a drumstick, was purchased from Mr. Walter Drift. Both sellers were members of the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake), one of six reservations that, together, comprise the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota. The two items go together. The two sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony are one drum and one drumstick.
Museum accession, catalogue, collector notes and purchase records, as well as consultation with representatives of the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa
Officials of the Science Museum of Minnesota have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), the two cultural items described above are specific ceremonial objects needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(D), the two cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony and the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Edward Fleming, Science Museum of Minnesota, 120 West Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55102, telephone (651) 221-4576, email
The Science Museum of Minnesota is responsible for notifying the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota, that this notice has been published.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Reclamation has made available to the public the Water Management Plans for eight entities. For the purpose of this announcement, Water Management Plans (Plans) are considered the same as Water Conservation Plans. Reclamation is publishing this notice in order to allow the public an opportunity to review the Plans and comment on the preliminary determinations.
Submit written comments on the preliminary determinations on or before September 29, 2017.
Send written comments to Ms. Charlene Stemen, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-400, Sacramento, CA 95825; or via email at
To be placed on a mailing list for any subsequent information, please contact Ms. Charlene Stemen at the email address above or at 916-978-5218 (TDD 978-5608).
To meet the requirements of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 and the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, the Bureau of Reclamation developed and published the Criteria for Evaluating Water Management Plans (Criteria) in the
Each of the eight entities listed below has developed a Plan that has been evaluated and preliminarily determined to meet the requirements of these Criteria. The following Plans are available for review:
We are inviting the public to comment on our preliminary (
1. Description of the District;
2. Inventory of Water Resources;
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Agricultural Contractors;
4. BMPs for Urban Contractors;
5. Plan Implementation;
6. Exemption Process;
7. Regional Criteria; and
8. Five-Year Revisions.
Reclamation evaluates Plans based on these criteria. A copy of these Plans will be available for review at Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-400, Sacramento, CA 95825. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. If you wish to review a copy of these Plans, please contact Ms. Stemen.
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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a general exclusion order (“GEO”) covering accused products found to infringe the asserted patents; a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) covering accused products found to infringe the asserted patents; a LEO covering accused products found to infringe the asserted trademarks; and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) directed against the participating respondents. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to Commission rules.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Intemet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are hereby invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on August 23, 2017. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended GEO, LEOs, and CDOs in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainants, complainants' licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the GEO, LEOs, and CDOs would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on Monday, September 11, 2017.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1007, Inv. No. 337-TA-1021 (Consolidated)”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 35052) and determined on September 6, 2016 that it would conduct a full review (82 FR 13132, March 9, 2017). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on August 24, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4719 (August 2017), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Request for Examination and/or Treatment,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 29, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Request for Examination and/or Treatment information collection. An employer uses Form LS-1, Request for Examination and/or Treatment, to authorize medical treatment for an injured worker. A physician uses the form to report findings of physical examinations and any recommended treatment. Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act section 39(a) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Dated: August 24, 2017.
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Nondiscrimination Compliance Information Reporting.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written public comments received by October 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Information Management Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authorization for the Nondiscrimination Compliance Information Reporting information collection that provides data used to help ensure a recipient of certain DOL Federal financial assistance programs does not discriminate in the administration, management, or operation of programs and activities. Information collections covered by this ICR include (1) a grant applicant providing assurance that the applicant is aware of and, as a condition of receipt of Federal financial assistance, agrees to comply with the assurance requirements; (2) a DOL funds recipient maintaining a record of EO characteristics data and a log of any EO complaints for activities under an applicable DOL funded program; (3) a person who believes a relevant EO requirement may have been violated filing a complaint with either the funds recipient or with the DOL Civil Rights Center; (4) a State periodically filing a plan outlining administrative methods the State will use to ensure funds are not used in a discriminatory manner; and (5) a DOL funds recipient posting required notices.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be a matter of the public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL will not honor any request to the contrary for a comment submitted in response to this notice. The DOL encourages commenters not to include sensitive personal information (
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Rock Burst Control Plan, (Pertains to Underground Metal/Nonmetal Mines),” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 29, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Rock Burst Control Plan, (Pertains to Underground Metal/Nonmetal Mines) information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR 57.3461, which requires an underground metal or nonmetal mine operator to develop a rock burst plan within ninety (90) days after a rock burst has been experienced. This information is used for work assignments to ensure miner safety and to schedule correction work. Despite having only one (1) respondent in any given year, the MSHA must maintain this information collection, as it is part of a rule of general applicability.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Department of Labor Events Registration Platform.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by October 30, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Information Management Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
This ICR pertains to the DOL Events Registration Platform. More specifically, the DOL periodically requests the public to register to attend a DOL sponsored event. The DOL Events Management Platform is a shared service that allows a DOL agency to collect registration information in a way that can be tailored to a particular event. As the information needed to register for specific events may vary, this ICR provides a generic format to obtain any required PRA authorization from the OMB. The DOL notes that registration requirements for many events do not require PRA clearance, because the information requested is minimal (
A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before September 29, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Escape and Evacuation Plans information collection requirements codified in regulations 30 CFR 57.11053, which requires the development of an escape and evacuation plan specifically addressing the unique conditions of each underground metal and nonmetal mine and requires that revisions be made as mining progresses. The plan must be available to MSHA representatives and conspicuously posted at locations convenient to all persons on the surface and underground. The mine operator and the MSHA are required jointly to review the plan at least once every six months. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended section 103(h) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 14, 2017.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as a NRTL. ITSNA requests the addition of seven test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
ITSNA currently has fourteen facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., 545 East Algonquin Road, Suite F, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005. A complete list of ITSNA's scope of recognition is available at
ITSNA submitted an application, dated April 21, 2015 (OSHA-2007-0039-0026), to expand its recognition to include seven additional test standards. OSHA staff performed detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in ITSNA's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
ITSNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicate that ITSNA can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these seven test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of ITSNA's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether ITSNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-3508, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant ITSNA's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements contained in Voluntary Protection Programs Information.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 30, 2017.
David Hamel, Director, Office of Partnerships and Recognition, Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,, Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2213.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) [47 FR 29025], adopted by OSHA, established the efficacy of cooperative action among government, industry and labor to address employee safety and health issues and to expand employee protection. To qualify, employers must meet OSHA's safety and health management criterion, which focuses on comprehensive management programs and active employee involvement to prevent or control worksite safety and health hazards. Employers who qualify generally view OSHA standards as a minimum level of safety and health performance, and set their own more stringent standards, wherever necessary, to improve employee protection. Prospective VPP worksites must submit an application that includes:
• General applicant information (
• Injury and illness rate performance information (
• Safety and health management program information (
OSHA uses this information to determine whether an applicant is ready for a VPP onsite evaluation and as a verification tool during VPP onsite evaluations. Without this information, OSHA would be unable to determine which sites are ready for VPP status.
Each current VPP applicant is also required to submit an annual self-evaluation which addresses how that applicant is continuing its adherence to programmatic requirements.
In 2008, OSHA modified procedures for VPP applicants, OSHA onsite evaluations, and annual participant self-evaluations for applicants/participants subject to OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard. Applicants who perform work that uses or produces highly hazardous chemicals exceeding specified limits covered under the PSM standard must submit responses to the PSM application supplement along with their VPP application.
Once in the VPP, the participant is required to submit an annual self-evaluation detailing its continued adherence to programmatic requirements. Applicants covered under the PSM standard are required to submit a PSM questionnaire, a supplemental document, as part of their annual submission. OSHA needs this information to ensure that the participant remains qualified to participate in the VPP between onsite evaluations. Without this information, OSHA would be unable to determine whether applicants are maintaining excellent safety and health management programs during this interim period.
In 2009, with the publication of the
Employees of VPP participants may apply to participate in the Special Government Employee (SGE) Program. The SGE Program offers private and public sector safety and health professionals and other qualified participants the opportunity to exchange ideas, gain new perspectives, and grow professionally while serving as full-fledged team members on OSHA's VPP onsite evaluations and helping OSHA with other VPP-related activities. In this capacity, SGEs may review company documents, assist with worksite walkthroughs, interview employees, assist in preparing VPP onsite evaluation reports, assist the Regional VPP Manager with the review of a site's VPP application or annual self-evaluation report, co-instruct the SGE course or VPP application workshop, and mentor potential or current VPP sites. Potential SGEs must submit an application that includes:
• SGE Eligibility Information Sheet (
• Current Resume;
• Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450).
• Optional Application for Federal Employment (OF 612).
OSHA uses the SGE Eligibility Information Sheet to ensure that the potential SGE works at a VPP site and meets the minimum eligibility qualifications. The resume is required to provide a detailed description of their current duties and responsibilities as they relate to safety and health and the implementation of an effective safety and health management program. The OGE Form 450 is used to ensure that SGEs do not participate on onsite evaluations at VPP sites in which they have a financial interest.
OSHA Challenge is designed to reach and guide employers and companies in all major industry groups who are strongly committed to improving their safety and health management programs and possibly pursuing recognition in the VPP. The Challenge Administrator's application is used to: (1) Conduct a preliminary analysis of the applicant's knowledge of safety and health management programs; and (2) make a determination regarding the applicant's qualifications to become a Challenge Administrator. Once a Challenge Administrator is approved, the program's Administrator will review each Challenge candidate's application/annual submissions to ensure that all necessary information is provided, prior to forwarding them to OSHA's National Office for analysis and acceptance.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA proposes to extend OMB's approval of the collection of information (paperwork) requirements necessitated by the Voluntary Protection Programs. The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease in the burden hours from 134,475 hours to 90,863 hours; a total decrease of 43,612 hours. The decrease is the result of the VPP Participation Evaluation Report Site-Based Mobile Workforce Corporate in managing participants is no longer needed. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors will meet telephonically on September 5, 2017. The meeting will commence at 4:00 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington DC 20007.
Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
• Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348;
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing Regulatory Guide (RG) 10.12, “Preparation of Petitions for Rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802 and Preparation and Submission of Proposals for Regulatory Guidance Documents.” Regulatory Guide 10.12 is being withdrawn because the guidance in the RG is found in the revised 10 CFR 2.802, “Petition for Rulemaking,” and in other user-friendly communication tools, such as the NRC's public Web site.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0186 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Harriet Karagiannis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-251-7477, email:
The NRC is withdrawing RG 10.12 because it is no longer the most appropriate platform for communicating this guidance to the public. The proposed rule combined with the updates in the NRC's public Web site provide more useful information for the Petition for Rulemaking (PRM) process.
The withdrawal of RG 10.12 does not alter any prior or existing licensing commitments based on its use. Although a regulatory guide is withdrawn, its use in existing licenses is still valid, and changes to the licenses can be accomplished using other regulatory products.
Withdrawal of a RG means that the guide no longer provides useful information or has been superseded by other guidance, technological innovations, congressional actions, or other events. A withdrawn guide should not be used for future NRC licensing activities.
The RG 10.12 was issued in December 1996. The RG 10.12 provides guidance on meeting the requirements in part 2 of title 10 of the
The staff has revised 10 CFR 2.802 to streamline the process for addressing a PRM. The rule: (1) Clarifies and codifies the NRC's current policies and practices on the actions taken upon receipt of a PRM and at other stages of the PRM process; (2) clarifies and improves the current policies and practices for evaluating PRMs; (3) updates the means for communicating with the petitioner and the public information on the status of NRC PRMs and rulemaking activities addressing PRMs; and (4) establishes an improved process for resolving PRMs, including an administrative process for closing the PRM docket to reflect agency action for the PRM. These changes are enhancing the consistency, timeliness, and transparency of the NRC's actions and are increasing the efficient use of the NRC's resources in the PRM process. The rule text supersedes the guidance that exists in RG 10.12.
In addition, information in RG 10.12 is made available through other user-friendly tools, such as the NRC's public Web site which is enhanced to provide updated guidance, including a brochure and a process flow chart, for submitting a PRM and proposals to change existing regulatory guidance documents.
The revised 10 CFR 2.802 combined with Web site updates provide more up-to-date information for the PRM process. Therefore, the guidance provided in this RG has been superseded.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled “NASDAQ Options Market—Fees and Rebates
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NOM proposes to amend the MARS subsidy program which pays a subsidy to NOM Participants that provide certain order routing functionalities to other NOM Participants and/or use such functionalities themselves. Generally, under MARS, the Exchange pays participating NOM Participants to subsidize their costs of providing routing services to route orders to NOM. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to MARS will continue to attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange from non-NOM Participants as well as NOM Participants.
Today, to qualify for MARS, a NOM Participant's routing system (hereinafter “System”) is required to meet certain criteria. Specifically the Participant's System is required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including NOM; (2) provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with NOM's API to access current NOM match engine functionality. The NOM Participant's System would also need to cause NOM to be one of the top three default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable orders if NOM is at the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”), regardless of size or time, (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on NOM's Order Book, but allow any user to manually override NOM as the default destination on an order-by-order basis.
MARS Payment are made to NOM Participants that have System Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a month (“Average Daily Volume”), which were executed on NOM.
Specifically, the specified MARS Payment are paid on all executed Eligible Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to NOM through a participating NOM Participant's System and meet the requisite Eligible Contracts ADV. No payments are made with respect to orders that are routed to NOM, but not executed.
The Exchange proposes to amend the MARS Payment tiers at Chapter XV, Section 2(6) by amending current tier 1 to require an ADV of 2,000 contracts instead of the current ADV of 2,500 contracts. The Exchange would continue to pay a $0.07 per contract MARS Payment for Penny Options and a $0.15 per contract rebate for Non-
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 1 to lower the requisite ADV from 2,500 to 2,000 contracts and continue to pay a MARS Payment of $0.07 per contract for Penny Pilot Options and $0.15 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options is reasonable because additional Participants would be able to qualify for a Tier 1 rebate, because of the lower requirement, provided the Participant has System Eligibility and executes the requisite ADV of Eligible Contracts. The Exchange believes this amendment may attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to NOM, which would in turn benefit all NOM Participants by offering greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. Also, the proposal should enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange, particularly with respect to those exchanges that offer their own front-end order entry system or one they subsidize in some manner. The amendment to Tier 1 may incentivize NOM Participants to participate in MARS to obtain the rebate, provided the NOM Participant is eligible for MARS. Further, the tier structure will continue to allow NOM Participants to price their services at a level that will enable them to attract order flow from market participants who would otherwise utilize an existing front-end order entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's competitors instead of incurring the cost in time and money to develop their own internal systems to be able to deliver orders directly to the Exchange's System.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 1 to lower the requisite ADV from 2,500 to 2,000 contracts and continue to pay a MARS Payment of $0.07 per contract for Penny Pilot Options and $0.15 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay all NOM Participants the rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the NOM Participant has executed the requisite ADV of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying NOM Participant that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilize such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Tier 1 to lower the requisite ADV from 2,500 to 2,000 contracts and continue to pay a MARS Payment of $0.07 per contract for Penny Pilot Options and $0.15 per contract for Non-Penny Pilot Options does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay all NOM Participants the MARS Payments specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers for Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Options provided the NOM Participant has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 26, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Oklahoma dated August 22, 2017.
Issued on 08/22/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15259 C and for economic injury is 15260 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Oklahoma.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of WISCONSIN dated August 18, 2017.
Issued on 8/18/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15249 6 and for economic injury is 15250 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Wisconsin Illinois.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Tennessee dated August 23, 2017.
Issued on 08/23/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15265 B and for economic injury is 15266 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Louisiana dated August 22, 2017.
Issued on 08/22/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15253 B and for economic injury is 15254 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Louisiana.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Pennsylvania dated August 23, 2017.
Issued on 08/23/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15263 6 and for economic injury is 15264 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Pennsylvania.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Pennsylvania dated August 23, 2017.
Issued on 08/23/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15261 6 and for economic injury is 15262 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Pennsylvania, West Virginia.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Renoir and Friends: Luncheon of the Boating Party,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Phillips Collection, Washington, District of Columbia, from on or about October 7, 2017, until on or about January 7, 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,
Pursuant to the Authority vested in me as Secretary of State by section 7041(a)(3)(B) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2016 (Div. K, Pub. L. 114-113) (“the Act”), I hereby determine that it is important to the national security interest of the United States to waive the certification requirement in section 7041(a)(3)(A) of the Act. I hereby waive that requirement.
This determination shall be reported to Congress, along with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification, and published in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of public listening session.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) will hold a public listening session on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at its offices in Washington, DC, to hear from CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), on its efforts to implement its new operating plan and to address service problems on its network, to provide shippers the opportunity to report on recent CSXT rail service issues they have experienced, and to discuss whether additional service recovery efforts may be necessary.
The public listening session will be held on September 12, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Hearing Room at the Board's headquarters located at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC. The listening session will be open for public observation. Any person wishing to speak at the listening session shall file with the Board a notice of intent to participate, identifying the party and the proposed speaker, no later than September 7, 2017. The notices of intent to participate are not required to be served on the parties of record; they will be posted to the Board's Web site when they are filed.
All filings may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-FILING” link on the Board's Web site at “
Copies of written submissions will be posted to the Board's Web site. Copies of the submissions will also be available (for a fee) by contacting the Board's Chief Records Officer at (202) 245-0238 or 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.
Amy C. Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
Rail network reliability is essential to the Nation's economy and is the foremost priority of the Board. Since July, the Board has taken a number of actions in response to the service problems resulting from CSXT's ongoing implementation of a new operating plan and has been closely monitoring CSXT's performance. In a July 27, 2017 letter, the Board Members requested that CSXT's senior management participate in weekly calls with the Board's Rail Customer and Public Assistance (RCPA)
The Board has also been working to ensure that CSXT addresses service issues that shippers inform the Board about as they arise. Representatives of RCPA have held numerous meetings and conference calls with affected parties to better understand the specific problems shippers are experiencing and to help facilitate a swift resolution whenever possible. In monitoring CSXT's recent problems, the Board has been providing information to all stakeholders in a transparent manner, requesting specific service performance data, and posting that data to the Board's Web site. RCPA is also having frequent phone conversations with CSXT's senior management regarding these informal service complaints.
CSXT has indicated that its internal metrics are showing that service in some areas is improving and that noticeable improvements should be more evident after Labor Day. Therefore, the Board will hold a public listening session beginning at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at its offices in Washington, DC, to hear firsthand from CSXT's senior officials and affected shippers about CSXT's rail service and efforts to improve service.
The Board will direct executive-level officials from CSXT to appear at the listening session to discuss their ongoing and future efforts to improve service and to provide an estimated timeline for recovery of normal service levels. The Board encourages impacted shippers to appear at the public listening session to discuss their service concerns and comment on the railroad's service recovery efforts. The Board's listening session is not intended to replace the data collection or the informal and confidential dispute resolution process facilitated by RCPA, and stakeholders who do not have formal complaints pending (discussed below) are encouraged to continue communicating through that office.
Additionally, in the past two weeks, some CSXT shippers have filed formal complaints against CSXT seeking service-related injunctive relief and/or money damages (Docket Nos. NOR 42154, NOR 42155, and NOR 42156); a petition to institute a proceeding to address the adequacy of CSXT's service (Docket No. EP 741); and a request for an emergency service order (by letter addressed to the Board Members).
1. A public listening session will be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in the Board's Hearing Room, at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC, as described above.
2. CSXT is directed to appear at the listening session through executive-level officials.
3. By September 7, 2017, any person wishing to speak at the listening session shall file with the Board a notice of intent to participate (identifying the party and the proposed speaker). The notices of intent to participate need not be served on the parties of record; they will be posted to the Board's Web site when they are filed.
4. The petition to institute a proceeding in Docket No. EP 741 is denied without prejudice.
5. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of final policy.
This action sets forth the final policy determination for the FAA's proposed plan to decommission remote communications outlets (RCO) used by Flight Service Stations in the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Based on comments, the FAA has decreased the number of RCOs planned for decommissioning from 666 to 641, which includes 404 RCOs and 237 VOR outlets.
Applicable: August 30, 2017.
Teri Bristol, ATO Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-1240.
The FAA maintains a network of over 2,100 remote communications outlets (RCOs) throughout the conterminous United States, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The RCOs are used by a contract service provider to communicate with pilots in flight. By using these frequencies, pilots can obtain weather briefings and file flight plans and receive numerous other services.
On April 28, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed policy outlining the plan to reduce the number of radio frequencies used by Flight Service Stations to communicate with aircraft in flight (81 FR 25484). The FAA noted that a network of 1,223 RCOs and 398 VOR frequencies cover a vast majority of the conterminous United States and include duplicate, overlapping, and seldom used frequencies. Based on a study conducted by MITRE, the FAA proposed a policy to decommission 666 RCOs in the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
The FAA received 13 comments on the proposed policy. The following summary of comments reflects the major issues raised and does not restate each comment received. The FAA considered all comments received even if not specifically identified and responded to in this notice. The FAA made revisions to the policy based on comments received.
1. An individual commented that the same frequency, 122.2, was listed twice for Princeton, Minnesota (PNM), one indicated that it would be retained, and one indicated that it would be removed. The FAA will retain PNM 122.2. The commenter also indicated that we have an RCO at Minneapolis that is not on either list. The RCO at Minneapolis, 122.3, will be decommissioned.
2. Two commenters noted that the Duluth, Minnesota (DLH) frequency 124.8 is not a Flight Service Station frequency. The FAA will remove DLH frequency 124.8 from the decommissioning list as it is not a Flight Service Station frequency.
3. Six commenters requested that the FAA not decommission the Galian, Ohio (GQQ) remote communications outlet. Several of these commenters suggested that the frequency was important to corporate, business, and general aviation traffic using the airport. The FAA will not decommission 126.8 at GQQ.
4. Another commenter recommended retaining Du Page, Illinois (DPA) frequency 122.3. The commenter noted that, if both Waukegan, Illinois (UGN) and DuPage, Illinois RCOs were decommissioned, the closest remote communications outlet for pilots flying in the area would be 40-50 miles away—MKE to the North, RFD to the West, IKK to the South and VPZ to the East. The FAA will not decommission DPA frequency 122.3.
5. A commenter noted that RCO usage is not uniformly distributed across the RCO coverage area and asked whether an analysis has been done to determine what percentage of actual FSS transactions would be affected. The individual commented that, if, for instance, there is a mountain pass with notoriously bad weather and pilots frequently call FSS inflight to get the conditions in that area then reduction of service in this area should not be considered equivalent to reduction of service in an area where there are few contacts made to FSS due to benign weather, few flights, etc.
6. The same commenter indicated that he believed that the baseline coverage should not have excluded VORs that are proposed to be decommissioned. He suggested that not including these VORs in the baseline artificially reduces the baseline coverage with respect to the actual current coverage. He noted that the stated goal was to reduce coverage by less than 10% but, if the baseline is already reduced, the result may be a reduction of more than 10% compared with today.
7. The same commenter also stated that the proposal reduces redundancy which is good from a fiscal and complexity standpoint but is bad when considering that equipment failures happen. He asked whether an analysis had been done of the current and expected reliability of the RCO MON including an assessment of how quickly it can be repaired and what the impact will be on pilots?
8. Finally, this commenter noted that he was concerned that, with the elimination of Flight Watch, there would be a further reduction of inflight weather resources available to pilots. He noted that, while FIS-B is now available, the coverage area is not 100%, many pilots do not have the necessary equipment to receive FIS-B information, and many pilots do not have the skills necessary to interpret the FIS-B data and rely on FSS personnel. FSS also provides services that FIS-B cannot duplicate such as opening and closing VFR flight plans.
9. Another commenter stated that, with the demise of the En Route Flight Advisory Service (EFAS), he believed it was unwise to eliminate 122.2 MHz and noted that 122.2 and 121.5 are two of the frequencies that pilots are taught to commit to memory as they were “go to” frequencies in a crisis.
In accordance with the above, the FAA is adopting the following policy statement on the decommissioning of Remote Communications Outlets used by Flight Service Stations in the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
The FAA will reduce the number of radio frequencies used by Flight Service Stations to communicate with aircraft in flight. Remote communications outlets in 641 locations will be decommissioned beginning in late fiscal year 2017. Notices to Airmen
A link to maps showing the approximate frequency coverage after the reduction at various altitudes, with percentages of coverage can be found here:
A link to the frequencies that will be decommissioned can be found here:
The FAA posted frequently asked Questions and Answers regarding the Reduction of Remote Communications Outlets Used by Flight Service Stations in the Conterminous United States on
These Questions and Answers will be periodically updated until FAA charts and publications are revised to reflect the changes in this notice.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of extension.
NHTSA is extending the public comment period for the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Model Year 2022-2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards to Monday, September 25, 2017. The NOI was published in the
To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity to fully consider scoping comments, scoping comments should be received on or before Monday, September 25, 2017. NHTSA will consider comments received after that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice. Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.
For technical issues, contact Ken Katz, Fuel Economy Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, telephone: 202-366-4936, email:
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, NHTSA published in the
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017, NHTSA received a request for a 30-day extension of the public comment period from the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Environment America, the Safe Climate Campaign, and the Environment Law & Policy Center. NHTSA has reviewed the request and is extending the public comment period for the NOI by 31 days to Monday, September 25, 2017. NHTSA will consider comments received after that date to the extent the rulemaking schedule allows.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR parts 1.81 and 1.95.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 945 Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax, Form 945-A Annual Record of Federal Tax Liability, Form 945-X Adjusted Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax or Claim for Refund and TD 8672 Reporting of Non-payroll Withheld Tax Liabilities.
Written comments should be received on or before October 30, 2017
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning long annuity contracts and qualifying longevity annuity contract information.
Written comments should be received on or before October 30, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before September 29, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before September 29, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before September 29, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
This revenue procedure also reflects modifications based on continuing internal monitoring of the administrative procedures of the U.S. competent authority to ensure that the administration of U.S. tax treaties is consistently principled, effective, and efficient.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Research and Development, Technology Transfer Program, intends to grant to the Arizona Board of Regents, for and on behalf of Northern Arizona University (NAU), 1395 South Knoles Drive, PO Box 4087, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4087, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 9,457,009 (“Methods and Compositions for Preventing and Treating Auditory Dysfunctions”) and related patent applications associated with VA Invention Disclosure number 10-148, titled, “Otoprotective Uncaria Tomentosa.” The invention provides methods for treating auditory impairments in a subject in need of treatment comprising administering to said subject an effective amount of a composition comprising, as an active agent, one or more of a carboxy alkyl ester, a quinic acid derivative, a caffeic acid derivative, a ferulic acid derivative, or a quinic acid lactone or derivative thereof or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and an acceptable carrier or excipient, so as to treat auditory impairments in the subject. Ultimately, this invention provides a novel therapeutic option for otoprotection and/or hearing recovery following injury.
Comments must be received September 14, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted through
Dr. Lee A. Sylvers, Technology Transfer Specialist, Office of Research and Development (10P9TT), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 443-5646 (this is not a toll-free number).
It is in the public interest to license this invention. NAU submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 15 days from the date of this published Notice, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, Technology Transfer Program receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 24, 2017, for publication.
(b) Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States under the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including Article II of the Constitution, I am directing the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, to return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016 until such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative effects discussed above. The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may advise me at any time, in writing, that a change to this policy is warranted.
(a) maintain the currently effective policy regarding accession of transgender individuals into military service beyond January 1, 2018, until such time as the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, provides a recommendation to the contrary that I find convincing; and
(b) halt all use of DoD or DHS resources to fund sex-reassignment surgical procedures for military personnel, except to the extent necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun a course of treatment to reassign his or her sex.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
| 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 |