Page Range | 41501-41823 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 41603 - Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper From Canada: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
82 FR 41599 - Certain Uncoated Groundwood Paper From Canada: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation | |
82 FR 41647 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Greater Phoenix Project, Lander County, NV | |
82 FR 41651 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 41664 - Report on Countries That Are Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility in Fiscal Year 2018 and Countries That Would Be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions | |
82 FR 41609 - Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Postponement of Final Determination of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation and Extension of Provisional Measures | |
82 FR 41646 - Royalty Policy Committee; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 41678 - Michelin North America, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
82 FR 41677 - Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
82 FR 41511 - Freedom of Information Act Regulations | |
82 FR 41673 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of TEXAS | |
82 FR 41612 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 41611 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
82 FR 41667 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information Collection | |
82 FR 41526 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLC; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule | |
82 FR 41521 - Safety Zone; Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA | |
82 FR 41631 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 41631 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 41631 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 41630 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 41629 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 41563 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measures and Closure for Atlantic Migratory Group Cobia | |
82 FR 41660 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Family and Medical Leave Act, Wave 4 Surveys | |
82 FR 41632 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies | |
82 FR 41656 - Titanium Sponge From Japan and Kazakhstan; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
82 FR 41568 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska | |
82 FR 41684 - Medicare Program; Recognition of Revised NAIC Model Standards for Regulation of Medicare Supplemental Insurance | |
82 FR 41621 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
82 FR 41611 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 41612 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 41614 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 41613 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 41613 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
82 FR 41616 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford | |
82 FR 41617 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada | |
82 FR 41617 - Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41674 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice | |
82 FR 41675 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Title XI Obligation Guarantees-46 CFR Part 298 | |
82 FR 41676 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 41676 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System (AMVER) | |
82 FR 41501 - Changes to the Inspection Coverage in Official Establishments That Slaughter Fish of the Order Siluriformes | |
82 FR 41607 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
82 FR 41610 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders | |
82 FR 41608 - Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order | |
82 FR 41598 - Foundry Coke Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
82 FR 41595 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review | |
82 FR 41674 - Savage Services Corporation-Continuance in Control Exemption-Savage Davenport Railroad Company | |
82 FR 41674 - Savage Davenport Railroad Company-Lease and Operation Exemption-City of Davenport, Iowa | |
82 FR 41680 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action | |
82 FR 41570 - Small-Scale Natural Gas Exports | |
82 FR 41634 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Rent Schedule-Low Income Housing | |
82 FR 41635 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evaluation of the HUD Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project Evaluation | |
82 FR 41562 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; 2017 Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Closure in the Eastern Pacific Ocean | |
82 FR 41520 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Brookhaven, NY | |
82 FR 41567 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment to the 2017 Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal Apportionments | |
82 FR 41523 - Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program | |
82 FR 41681 - Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 41615 - Notice of Public Meetings for The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study-Brandon Road Draft Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement-Will County, Illinois | |
82 FR 41577 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 41508 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
82 FR 41663 - Distribution of the 2009, 2010, and 2011 Digital Audio Recording Technology Royalty Funds for the Musical Works Funds | |
82 FR 41645 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications | |
82 FR 41627 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received | |
82 FR 41624 - Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Support End Date for Study Data Tabulation Model Version 1.2, Implementation Guide Version 3.1.2, and Implementation Guide Version 3.1.2, Amendment 1 | |
82 FR 41529 - First Amendment to Collocation Agreement | |
82 FR 41589 - Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41591 - Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41592 - Fresno and Madera Counties Resource Advisory Committees | |
82 FR 41593 - Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41592 - Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41588 - Meeting of Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41588 - Central Montana Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41587 - Forestry Research Advisory Council | |
82 FR 41593 - Central Montana Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41591 - West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41587 - Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41589 - Wrangell-Petersburg Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41590 - Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41666 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; 60-Day Notice for Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
82 FR 41623 - Federal Advisory Committee, Diversity and Digital Empowerment | |
82 FR 41626 - Procedures for Meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability | |
82 FR 41624 - Determination That NIZORAL (Ketoconazole) Tablets, 200 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness | |
82 FR 41658 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection Dispensing Records of Individual Practitioners | |
82 FR 41520 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR | |
82 FR 41519 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR | |
82 FR 41579 - VA Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Guidelines | |
82 FR 41622 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
82 FR 41620 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NOX | |
82 FR 41594 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41618 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725U); Comment Request; Extension | |
82 FR 41619 - Agency Operations in the Absence of a Quorum; Notice of Termination of Delegation of Further Authority to Staff Due To Reestablishment of Quorum | |
82 FR 41675 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Vincenzo Tassi Martins: Child Restraint System | |
82 FR 41594 - Notice of Availability of a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Region of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network | |
82 FR 41670 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Implement a New Electronic Form 211 | |
82 FR 41630 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 41629 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 41616 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Corrective Action Plan (CAP) | |
82 FR 41621 - Consumer Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 41646 - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee; Public Meeting | |
82 FR 41648 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
82 FR 41649 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
82 FR 41620 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 41657 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
82 FR 41681 - Disposition of Enhanced-Use Leased Property at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-Brecksville, Ohio, Campus Known as 10000 Brecksville Road, Brecksville, OH 44141 | |
82 FR 41669 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 41633 - National Maritime Security Advisory Committee | |
82 FR 41614 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Proposed Collection (3038-XXXX), Reparations Complaint, CFTC Form 30 | |
82 FR 41647 - Notice of Invitation To Participate; Coal Exploration License Application WYW185631, Wyoming | |
82 FR 41530 - Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services | |
82 FR 41580 - Amendment of the Commission's Rules To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services | |
82 FR 41527 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Indiana Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter | |
82 FR 41564 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Year 2017; Emergency Removal of Southern Windowpane Accountability Measures | |
82 FR 41662 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notice of Recurrence | |
82 FR 41661 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Safety and Health Administration Grantee Quarterly Progress Report | |
82 FR 41659 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Underground Construction Standard | |
82 FR 41659 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notice of Alleged Safety or Health Hazards | |
82 FR 41637 - Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program, and Other Programs Fiscal Year 2018 and Adoption of Methodology Changes for Estimating Fair Market Rents | |
82 FR 41651 - Pure Magnesium (Granular) From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review | |
82 FR 41654 - Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From China; Institution of a Five-Year Review | |
82 FR 41680 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to an Executive Order Issued on September 23, 2001, Titled “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism” | |
82 FR 41503 - Safeguarding of Restricted Data by Access Permittees | |
82 FR 41549 - Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations | |
82 FR 41583 - Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations |
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
First Responder Network Authority
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Copyright Royalty Board
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Response to comments; confirmation of implementation date.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is confirming that on September 1, 2017, it will adjust inspection coverage at official establishments that slaughter fish of the order Siluriformes from all hours of operation to once per production shift. FSIS also is responding to comments received on the May 17, 2017
FSIS will adjust inspection coverage at official establishments that slaughter Siluriformes fish from all hours of operation to once per production shift, beginning September 1, 2017.
Rachel Edelstein, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205-0495, or by Fax: (202) 720-2025.
On December 2, 2015, FSIS amended its regulations by publishing the final rule, “Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish” (80 FR 75590). Fish of the order Siluriformes include, but are not limited to, “catfish” (fish of the family Ictaluridae) and “basa” and “swai” (fish of the family Pangasiidae). For convenience, this notice will use “fish” to mean all fish of the order Siluriformes.
Specifically, the final rule established regulations to implement the provisions of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to include fish as amenable and to provide for their inspection by FSIS. In the preamble to the final rule, FSIS stated that during an 18-month transitional period, it would assign inspection program personnel to be present during all hours of operation at domestic establishments that slaughter fish and, at the start of the period, assign inspection program personnel to conduct inspection at processing-only facilities at least quarterly. FSIS also stated that it might adjust inspection frequency in fish slaughter establishments in the future and, that at the end of the 18-month transitional period, inspection program personnel would be assigned at least once per day per shift at processing-only establishments (80 FR 75606).
On May 17, 2017, FSIS announced and requested comment on its decision to adjust inspection coverage at fish slaughter establishments, starting September 1, 2017, from all hours of operation to once per production shift (82 FR 22609). This decision was based on the Agency's experience inspecting official fish slaughter establishments since implementing the mandatory inspection program on March 1, 2016. FSIS found that the typical fish slaughter operation is a streamlined, automated process that combines slaughter with processing in the same continuous operation, more like meat processing-only operations than like slaughter operations for other species amenable to the FMIA.
A consumer advocacy organization requested that FSIS extend the comment period by 30 days, so as to make informed comments. FSIS agreed and on June 16, 2017, extended the comment period until July 17, 2017 (82 FR 27680). At the conclusion of the comment period, FSIS had received eight comments. After reviewing these comments, FSIS is affirming its plan to adjust inspection coverage at official fish slaughter establishments from all hours of operation to once per production shift, beginning September 1, 2017. Issues raised by the comments received and FSIS's responses follow.
FSIS received eight comments in response to its announced plans to adjust inspection coverage at official fish slaughter establishments. The comments were from two trade associations, one fish establishment, two FSIS inspectors, two consumer advocacy organizations and a foreign government. Four of the comments supported the change, agreeing that establishments that slaughter fish are most similar in operation and design to meat processing-only establishments and, therefore, should be inspected like a meat processing-only establishment, as opposed to meat slaughter establishments,
The comment from the foreign government agreed with the rationale for the proposed change, but advocated for even less frequent inspection of fish, owing to its position that fish products pose little risk to the public health. As stated above, amendments to the FMIA in 2008 and 2014 directed FSIS to inspect the preparation of fish and fish products. USDA has historically interpreted the requirements in the FMIA for inspection of meat processing to mandate inspection at least once per production shift. Because FSIS has determined that operations in fish slaughter establishments are more like those in meat processing-only establishments, it is requiring inspection at a frequency of once per production shift there, as well.
Several of the supportive comments expressed concern that the adjustment in inspection frequency would affect an establishment's approved hours of operation (typically 8-hour shifts) and charges for inspection services outside these hours. It will not. The regulations at 9 CFR 307.4 through 307.6, and associated FSIS policies, regarding the provision of inspection services, would continue to apply to fish establishments. Official fish establishments should coordinate with their District Office to determine hours of operation and for clarification on what activities require inspection.
Comments from the two consumer advocacy organizations and from an FSIS inspector opposed the change. One of the consumer advocacy organizations questioned the Agency's implementation of inspection under 21 U.S.C. 606, for both fish and other meat
FSIS disagrees. A narrow interpretation of the language in 21 U.S.C. 606, requiring that each unit of meat product be individually inspected by FSIS before movement in commerce, would create enormous costs without significantly increasing the effectiveness of inspection. USDA has never interpreted this language so narrowly in administration of the FMIA at meat processing-only establishments. In regard to the new section 21 U.S.C. 606(b), FSIS has determined that this section grants the Agency authority to conduct verification activities regarding the raising or transport of fish, but does not address the frequency of inspection or verification activities regarding the preparation of fish. Again, FSIS believes that the risks associated with fish slaughter are more closely aligned with meat processing, as further confirmed by explicit Congressional exemption of fish from the ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection provisions of the FMIA.
When FSIS inspection program personnel visit meat processing-only establishments, they systematically verify compliance with the regulatory requirements. Inspectors routinely check the cleanliness of equipment and facilities, wholesomeness of incoming source materials, processing procedures, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) records, product labels, as well as other things. In addition, they submit samples for analysis, as directed in FSIS's Public Health Information System. FSIS inspection program personnel assigned to official fish establishments will be instructed to follow the same procedures. Therefore, we believe this approach will provide a high level of assurance that the fish products are safe, wholesome, and properly packaged and labeled, and that the public health will continue to be effectively protected by the change in inspection coverage.
Both comments from consumer advocacy organizations raise concerns about the effect of the adjustment in inspection frequency on the Agency's programs to ensure the safety of imported fish and fish products. One comment contends that FSIS has not considered the conditions under which imported fish have been raised or transported. The other comment cites the number of shipments of foreign fish and fish products rejected by FSIS for import or recalled from commerce, because of violative residues found through FSIS testing, as evidence that foreign fish production, processing and inspection systems are inadequate. The commenter suggests that inspection during all hours of operation should be required for foreign slaughter and processing of fish intended for import to the United States.
FSIS does consider the conditions under which imported fish are raised and transported through both the equivalence process and its testing of imported fish and fish products. When applying to export fish and fish products to the United States, a foreign country's Central Competent Authority (CCA) must demonstrate to FSIS that it ensures fish for export are raised and transported under conditions that prevent product adulteration. For example, the CCA must provide information regarding how it ensures that fish are not grown or farmed under conditions that would cause them to be adulterated; details of its sampling of feed, fish or the body of water from which the fish are harvested; and information on its program for ensuring that fish are transported under sanitary conditions from harvest to processing establishments. A foreign country's inspection program cannot be deemed equivalent unless the CCA demonstrates that it prevents the adulteration of fish during raising and transport.
Additionally, FSIS tests fish and fish products collected during reinspection for chemical residues,
In regard to inspection frequency for imported fish and fish products, the FMIA and the regulations specifically require that imported products be held to the same standards as domestic products. The FMIA at 21 U.S.C. 620 requires that no product may be imported into the United States unless it complies with all applicable provisions of the FMIA and the regulations issued thereunder. The fish import regulations at 9 CFR 557.3 specifically require that no fish or fish product offered for importation from any foreign country shall be admitted into the United States if it is adulterated or misbranded or does not comply with all the requirements that would apply to it if it were a domestic product.
Therefore, because FSIS will require government inspection of fish preparation at least once per production shift, to be determined equivalent, a foreign country's fish inspection system must also provide government inspection at least once per production shift. FSIS sees no basis to impose inspection requirements for imported fish that are in addition to those applied to domestic fish. Food safety issues with imported fish can be addressed through import reinspection, enforcement and the equivalence process.
Finally, one inspector opposed the change in inspection frequency at fish slaughter establishments, expressing concern that the change would result in increased workloads for inspectors that are currently assigned to these establishments. FSIS disagrees. The change in inspection frequency will simply place establishments that slaughter fish into “patrol assignments” including other meat and poultry processing establishments. The inspection workload for affected inspectors will be no different than the workload associated with current patrol assignments of processing establishments.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has revised its regulations governing the standards for safeguarding Restricted Data by access permittees. The previous version of this regulation was promulgated in 1983. Since 1983, changes in organizations, terminology, and DOE and national policies rendered portions of the previous regulation outdated. This version updates existing requirements.
This rule is effective October 2, 2017.
Ms. Linda Ruhnow, Office of Security Policy at (301) 903-2661;
The U.S. Department of Energy may issue an access permit to any person, as set forth in 10 CFR part 725, who requires access to Restricted Data applicable to civil uses of atomic energy for use in his/her business, trade or profession. 10 CFR part 725 specifies the terms and conditions under which the Department will issue an access permit and provides for the amendment, renewal, suspension, termination and revocation of an access permit.
The regulations in 10 CFR part 1016 establish requirements for the safeguarding of Secret and Confidential Restricted Data received or developed under an access permit. This part does not apply to Top Secret information because no such information may be provided to an access permittee within the scope of this regulation. The regulations in this part apply to all persons who may require access to Restricted Data used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, or handled in connection with an access permit.
The original regulations for the safeguarding of Restricted Data were Atomic Energy Commission regulations that were transferred to the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) upon its formation in 1974 (Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; Pub. L. 93-438). The regulations were subsequently revised to conform to ERDA's organization (41 FR 56775, 41 FR 56785-56788, Dec. 30, 1976). The regulations were updated and transferred from 10 CFR part 795 to 10 CFR part 1016 in Aug. 10, 1983 (48 FR 36432). DOE has developed this version of 10 CFR part 1016 to reflect organizational, terminology and policy changes that have occurred since the regulations were last revised.
DOE proposed changes to the regulations at 10 CFR part 1016 on November 16, 2016 (81 FR 80612). No comments were received. No changes were made to the proposed regulations except to modify the definition of an “L” access authorization in § 1016.3, Definitions.
With the exception of the definition of an “L” access authorization in § 1016.3, Definitions, the modifications to 10 CFR part 1016 adopted in this final rule are described in the Section by Section Analysis in section II of DOE's notice of proposed rulemaking published on November 16, 2016 (81 FR 80612). In § 1016.3, Definitions, the definition of “L” access authorization was modified from DOE's proposed changes to update the type of background investigation required by DOE and national level directives. The reference to National Agency Checks with Local Agency Checks and Credit Check background investigation has been replaced with a Tier III background investigation.
This action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE has reviewed this rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and certifies that, as adopted, the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Because these standards and requirements consist of clarifications and updates to existing standards and requirements, DOE does not expect that the impact on any Access Permittees would be significant. DOE sought comment on its estimate of the number of small entities and the expected effects of this rule and received no comments.
For the above reasons, DOE certifies that the rule, as adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not contain a collection of information subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This rule amends existing policies and procedures establishing safeguarding of Restricted Data standards and requirements for Access Permittees and has no significant environmental impact. Consequently, the Department has determined that this rule is covered under Categorical Exclusion A-5, of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to a rulemaking that addresses amending an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to develop a formal process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have “federalism implications.” Policies that have federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” On March 7, 2011, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735, March 14, 2000).
DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), instructs each agency to adhere to certain requirements in promulgating new regulations. These requirements, set forth in section 3(a) and (b), include eliminating drafting errors and needless ambiguity, drafting the regulations to minimize litigation, providing clear and certain legal standards for affected legal conduct, and promoting simplification and burden reduction. Agencies are also instructed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation describes any administrative proceeding to be available prior to judicial review and any provisions for the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Department has determined that this regulatory action meets the requirements of section 3(a) and (b) of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory action on state, local and tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. UMRA also requires Federal agencies to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” In addition, UMRA requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments that may be affected before establishing a requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820, March 18, 1997). (This policy is also available at
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternates to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This rule is not a significant energy action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator of OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Classified information, Nuclear energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, DOE amends part 1016 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Sec. 161.i. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(1) “Q” access authorizations are based upon single scope background investigations as set forth in applicable DOE and national-level directives. They permit an individual who has “need to know” access to Top Secret, Secret and Confidential Restricted Data, Formerly Restricted Data, National Security Information, or special nuclear material in Category I or II quantities as required in the performance of duties, subject to additional determination that permitting this access will not endanger the common defense or national security of the United States. There may be additional requirements for access to specific types of RD information.
(2) “Q(X)” access authorizations are based upon the same level of investigation required for a Q access authorization. When “Q” access authorizations are granted to access permittees they are identified as “Q(X)” access authorizations and, as need-to-know applies, authorize access only to the type of Secret Restricted Data as specified in the permit and consistent with appendix A, 10 CFR part 725, “Categories of Restricted Data Available.”
(3) “L” access authorizations are based upon a Tier III (formerly National Agency Check with Local Agency Checks and Credit Checks (NACLC)/Access National Agency Check with Inquiries (ANACI)) background investigation as set forth in applicable national-level directives. They permit an individual who has “need to know” access to Confidential Restricted Data, Secret and Confidential Formerly Restricted Data, or Secret and Confidential National Security Information, required in the performance of duties, provided such information is not designated “CRYPTO” (classified cryptographic information), “COMSEC” (communications security), or intelligence information and subject to additional determination that permitting this access will not endanger the common defense or national security of the United States. There may be additional requirements for access to specific types of RD information.
(4) “L(X)” access authorizations are based upon the same level of investigation required for an “L” access authorization. When “L” access authorizations are granted to access permittees, they are identified as “L(X)” access authorizations and, as need to know applies, authorize access only to the type of Confidential Restricted Data as specified in the permit and consistent with appendix A, 10 CFR part 725, “Categories of Restricted Data Available.”
(c)
(d)
(h)
(i)
(k)
(u)
Communications concerning rulemaking,
No access permit holder shall have access to Restricted Data until he has submitted to the DOE a written statement of his procedures for the safeguarding of Restricted Data and for the security education of his employees, and DOE shall have determined and informed the permittee that his procedures for the safeguarding of Restricted Data are in compliance with the regulations in this part and that his procedures for the security education of his employees, who will have access to Restricted Data, are informed about and understand the regulations in this part. These procedures must ensure that employees with access to Restricted Data are informed about and understand who is authorized or required to classify and declassify RD and FRD information and classified matter as well as how documents containing RD or FRD are marked (see 10 CFR part 1045) and safeguarded.
Following receipt of an acceptable request for security facility approval, the DOE will perform an initial security survey of the permittee's facility to determine that granting a security facility approval would be consistent with the national security. If DOE makes such a determination, security facility approval will be granted. If not, security facility approval will be withheld pending compliance with the security survey recommendations or until a waiver is granted pursuant to § 1016.6.
Notification of the DOE's granting, denial, or suspension of security facility approval will be furnished the permittee in writing, or orally with written confirmation. This information may also be furnished to representatives of the DOE, DOE contractors, or other Federal agencies having a need to transmit Restricted Data to the permittee.
When a request for security facility approval is to be withdrawn or cancelled, the cognizant DOE Office will be notified by the requester immediately by telephone and confirmed in writing so that processing of this approval may be terminated.
(a) Security facility approval will be terminated when:
(1) There is no longer a need to use, process, store, reproduce, transmit, or handle Restricted Data at the facility; or
(2) The DOE makes a determination that continued security facility approval is not in the interest of common defense and security.
(b) The permittee will be notified in writing of a determination to terminate facility approval, and the procedures outlined in § 1016.27 will apply.
(a) Persons who possess Restricted Data pursuant to an Access Permit shall store the Restricted Data classified matter when not in use in a locked storage container or DOE-approved vault to which only persons with appropriate access authorization and a need to know the information contained have access. Storage containers used for storing classified matter must conform to U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) standards and specifications.
(b) Each permittee shall change the combination on locks of his safekeeping equipment whenever such equipment is placed in use, whenever an individual knowing the combination no longer requires access to the repository as a result of change in duties or position in the permittee's organization, or termination of employment with the permittee or whenever the combination has been subjected to compromise, and in any event at least once a year. Permittees shall classify records of combinations no lower than the highest classification of the classified matter authorized for storage in the safekeeping equipment concerned.
While in use, classified matter containing Restricted Data shall be under the direct control of a person with the appropriate access authorization and need to know. Unauthorized access to the Restricted Data shall be precluded.
(a) When, because of their nature or size, it is impracticable to safeguard classified matter containing Restricted Data in accordance with the provisions of §§ 1016.13 and 1016.14, a security area to protect such classified matter shall be established.
(b) The following controls shall apply to security areas:
(1) Security areas shall be separated from adjacent areas by a physical barrier designed to prevent entrance into such areas, and access to the Restricted Data within the areas, by unauthorized individuals.
(2) During working hours, admittance shall be controlled by an appropriately cleared individual posted at each unlocked entrance.
(3) During nonworking hours, admittance shall be controlled by protective personnel on patrol, with protective personnel posted at unlocked entrances, or by such intrusion detection system as DOE approves.
(4) Each individual authorized to enter a security area shall be issued a distinctive badge or pass when the number of employees assigned to the area exceeds thirty.
Whenever armed protective personnel are required in accordance with § 1016.15, such protective personnel shall:
(a) Possess a “Q” or “L” access authorization or “Q(X)” or “L(X)” access authorization if the Restricted Data being protected is classified Confidential, or a “Q” access authorization or “Q(X)” access authorization if the Restricted Data being protected is classified Secret.
(b) Be armed with sidearms of 9mm or greater.
(a) Except as DOE may authorize, no person subject to the regulations in this part shall permit any individual to have access to Restricted Data in his possession unless the individual has an appropriate access authorization granted by DOE, or has been certified by DOD or NASA through DOE; and
(1) The individual is authorized by an Access Permit to receive Restricted Data in the categories involved and the permittee determines that such access is required in the course of his duties; or
(2) The individual needs such access in connection with such duties as a DOE employee or DOE contractor employee, or as certified by DOD or NASA.
(b) Inquiries concerning the access authorization status of individuals, the scope of Access Permits, or the nature of contracts should be addressed to the cognizant DOE or NNSA office.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) In addition, such classified matter containing Restricted Data shall be transmitted only to persons who possess approved facilities for their physical security consistent with this part. Any person subject to the regulations in this part who transmits such Restricted Data containing Restricted Data shall be deemed to have fulfilled his obligations under this paragraph (a)(2) by securing a written certification from the prospective recipient that such recipient possesses facilities for its physical security consistent with this part.
(3) Restricted Data shall not be exported from the United States without prior authorization from DOE.
(b)
(1) They shall be enclosed in two sealed, opaque envelopes or wrappers.
(2) The inner envelope or wrapper shall be addressed in the ordinary manner and sealed with tape, the appropriate classification shall be marked on both sides of the envelope, and any additional marking required by 10 CFR part 1045 shall be applied.
(3) The outer envelope or wrapper shall be addressed in the ordinary manner. No classification, additional marking, or other notation shall be affixed which indicates that the document enclosed therein contains classified information or Restricted Data.
(4) A receipt which identifies the document, the date of transfer, the recipient, and the person transferring the document shall accompany the document and shall be signed by the recipient and returned to the sender whenever the custody of a document containing Secret Restricted Data is transferred.
(c)
(1) The classified matter shall be so packaged that the classified characteristics will not be revealed.
(2) A receipt which identifies the classified matter, the date of shipment, the recipient, and the person transferring the classified matter shall accompany the classified matter, and the recipient shall sign such receipt whenever the custody of classified matter containing Secret Restricted Data is transferred.
(d)
(i) By messenger-courier system specifically created for that purpose and approved for use by DOE.
(ii) Registered mail.
(iii) By protective services provided by United States air or surface commercial carriers under such conditions as may be preserved by the DOE.
(iv) Individuals possessing appropriate DOE access authorization who have been given written authority by their employers.
(2) Confidential classified matter may be transported by one of the methods set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section or by U.S. first class, express, or certified mail.
(e)
Each permittee possessing classified matter (including classified matter in electronic format) containing Secret Restricted Data shall establish accountability procedures and shall maintain logs to document access to and record comprehensive disposition information for all such classified matter that has been in his custody at any time.
Classified matter containing Restricted Data shall not be downgraded or declassified except as authorized by DOE and in accordance with 10 CFR part 1045.
Documents containing Restricted Data may be destroyed by burning, pulping, or another method that assures complete destruction of the information which they contain. Restricted Data contained in classified matter, other than documents, may be destroyed only by a method that assures complete obliteration, removal, or destruction of the Restricted Data.
Storage, use, processing, and transmission of Restricted Data on computers, computer networks, electronic devices/media and mobile devices must be approved by DOE. DOE-approved methods must be used when destroying classified information that is in electronic format.
(a) In accordance with § 1016.12, if the need to use, process, store, reproduce, transmit, or handle classified matter no longer exists, the security facility approval will be terminated. The permittee may deliver all Restricted Data to the DOE or to a person authorized to receive them; or the permittee may destroy all such Restricted Data. In either case, the facility must submit a certification of non-possession of Restricted Data to the DOE.
(b) In any instance where security facility approval has been suspended or revoked based on a determination of the DOE that further possession of classified matter by the permittee would endanger the common defense and national security, the permittee shall, upon notice from the DOE, immediately deliver all Restricted Data to the DOE along with a certificate of non-possession of Restricted Data.
The DOE shall make such inspections and surveys of the premises, activities, records, and procedures of any person subject to the regulations in this part as DOE deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act, Executive Order 13526, and DOE orders and procedures.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8 model turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by analysis that resulted in the reduction of the life of the affected fan blades. This AD requires inspections of the affected fan blades until their removal. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 6, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 6, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE—Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE CF34-8 model turbofan engines. 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.
The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM.
Republic Airlines requested that we rescind the AD action. Republic Airlines does not feel that the failure of the blade is an airworthiness issue that should be addressed by this AD. Republic Airlines feels that in the event of a failed blade, the aircraft could continue to a safe flight and landing. The failure would be evident operationally and the crews would take the appropriate steps to return the aircraft and its occupants safely to the closest airport.
We disagree. Based on the analysis that resulted in the reduction of the life of the affected fan blades, the FAA determined an unsafe condition exists based on the extremely high number of forecasted events. We did not change this AD.
J-Air & Horizon Air requested that we mandate the use of specific service bulletins in paragraph (g) of this AD. Paragraph (g) of this AD does not specify an ECI procedure.
We partially agree. We disagree with mandating the use of specific service bulletins in paragraph (g) of this AD because that would preclude the use of other procedures that may be acceptable.
However, we added a statement to compliance paragraph (g) in this AD indicating the GE service documents in which guidance can be found for performing the ECI.
Horizon Air requested that we provide instructions with regard to the repetitive inspection interval requirements for fan blades that have accumulated an unknown number of CSN.
We agree. We added paragraph (g)(4)(iii) of this AD to mandate a repetitive inspection.
Horizon Air requested that we provide a designated paragraph for terminating action. Although paragraph (h) of this AD provides fan blade, part number (P/N) 4114T31G01, as a repair option, the repair is not specifically given as a means to terminate the repetitive inspections required for fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02.
We disagree. This AD requires repetitive inspections only for fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02. Therefore, once a fan blade is repaired to P/N 4114T31G01, a repetitive inspection is not required. We did not change this AD.
Horizon Air requested that all references to GE Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) CF34-8E SB 72-A0115, R03 be revised to R04.
We agree. We revised this AD to refer to the latest service information revision and date.
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 GE ASB CF34-8C SB 72-A0137, Revision 5 (R05), dated June 15, 2016. This ASB identifies an approved inspection method and provides the procedures necessary for calculating the adjusted CSN for the initial inspection of CF34-8C fan blades.
We also reviewed CF34-8E ASB 72-A0060, Revision 5 (R05), dated June 15, 2016. This ASB identifies an approved inspection method and provides the procedures necessary for calculating the adjusted CSN for the initial inspection of CF34-8E fan blades.
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 reviewed GE ASBs CF34-8E SB 72-A0115, R04, dated December 9, 2016; and CF34-8C SB 72-A0225, R03, dated December 9, 2016. These ASBs describe procedures for repairing fan blade, part number (P/N) 4114T15P02 to P/N 4114T31G01, with the installation of a bushing in the pinholes.
We estimate that this AD affects 1,986 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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 engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 6, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8C1, CF34-8C5, CF34-8C5A1, CF34-8C5B1, CF34-8C5A2, CF34-8C5A3, CF34-8E2, CF34-8E2A1, CF34-8E5, CF34-8E5A1, CF34-8E5A2, CF34-8E6 and CF34-8E6A1 engines, including engines marked on the engine data plate as CF34-8C5B1/B, CF34-8C5/B, CF34-8C5A1/B, CF34-8C5A2/B, CF34-8C5/M, CF34-8C5A1/M, CF34-C8C5A2/M, CF34-8C5A3/B, or CF34-8C5B1/M, with a fan blade, part number (P/N) 4114T15P02 or P/N 4114T31G01, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by analysis that resulted in the reduction of the life of the affected fan blades. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan blade, uncontained blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For CF34-8C1, CF34-8C5B1, CF34-8C5B1/B and CF34-8E2 engines with fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02, installed:
(i) Perform an initial ECI of the fan blade pinhole prior to the fan blade accumulating 25,000 cycles-since-new (CSN); and
(ii) Repeat this inspection within every 3,000 cycles thereafter.
(2) For CF34-8C5, CF34-8C5/B, CF34-8C5A1, CF34-8C5A1/B, CF34-8C5A2, CF34-8C5A2/B, CF34-8E2A1, CF34-8E5, CF34-8E5A1, CF34-8E6 and CF34-8E6A1 engines with fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02, installed:
(i) Perform an initial ECI of the fan blade pinhole prior to the fan blade accumulating 19,500 CSN; and
(ii) Repeat this inspection within every 3,000 cycles thereafter, until the fan blade has accumulated 25,000 CSN, then repeat the inspection every 1,500 cycles thereafter.
(3) For CF34-8C5/M, CF34-8C5A1/M, CF34-8C5A2/M, CF34-8C5A3, CF34-8C5A3/B, CF34-8C5B1/M, and CF34-8E5A2 engines with fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02, installed:
(i) Perform an initial ECI of the fan blade pinhole prior to the fan blade accumulating 19,000 CSN; and
(ii) Repeat this inspection within every 3,000 cycles thereafter, until the fan blade has accumulated 25,000 CSN, then repeat the inspection every 1,500 cycles thereafter.
(4) For any affected engine with a fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02, installed, where the CSN of the fan blade is unknown on the effective date of this AD:
(i) Assume the blade has accumulated 25,000 CSN on the effective date of this AD; and
(ii) Inspect the blade prior to installation or within 500 cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is earlier.
(iii) Repeat this inspection based on the intervals of the new engine installation, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(5) If a fan blade is moved from one affected engine model to another affected model after the initial ECI:
(i) Perform an additional ECI of the blade prior to installation in the new model; and
(ii) Repeat this inspection based on the intervals of the new engine installation, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(6) If a fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02, has been used on more than one engine model prior to the initial ECI, use Appendix A of GE Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) CF34-8C SB
(7) Guidance on performing the ECI can be found in GE Service Bulletins GE ASB CF34-8C SB 72-A0137, R05, dated June 15, 2016, or GE ASB CF34-8E SB 72-A0060, R05, dated June 15, 2016.
(1) For any affected engine with a fan blade, P/N 4114T15P02, installed, remove the blade from service or repair to P/N 4114T31G01 prior to the blade accumulating 41,000 CSN.
(2) For any affected engine with a fan blade, P/N 4114T31G01, installed, remove the blade from service prior to the blade accumulating 28,000 cycles since installation of the pinhole bushing.
(1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 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 ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. You may email your request 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE ASB CF34-8E SB 72-A0115, R04, dated December 9, 2016, and GE ASB CF34-8C SB 72-A0225, R03, dated December 9, 2016, can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (k)(3) 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) General Electric Company (GE) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) CF34-8C SB 72-A0137, Revision 5 (R05), dated June 15, 2016.
(ii) GE ASB CF34-8E SB 72-A0060, Revision 5 (R05), dated June 15, 2016.
(3) For General Electric Company service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information 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:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Final rule.
The Tennessee Valley Authority issues this final rule amending its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to incorporate the statutory changes made to the FOIA by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (Act). The TVA's FOIA regulations provide the procedures by which the public may request records from TVA, and the policies and procedures by which TVA provides such records to the public upon written request. TVA is updating its regulations to incorporate the procedural requirements of the Act.
This rule is effective September 1, 2017.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Freedom of Information Act Office, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive (WT 7D), Knoxville, TN 37902-1401.
Ms. Denise Smith, FOIA Officer, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive (WT 7D), Knoxville, TN 37902-1401.
The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 requires that Federal agencies review and update their FOIA regulations in accordance with its provisions. The provisions include a requirement that agencies make available for public inspection, in an electronic format records, that have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records, or records that have been requested under FOIA three or more times. The Act requires that agencies provide a minimum of 90 days for requesters to file an administrative appeal following an adverse determination, and that agencies provide dispute resolution services at various times throughout the FOIA process. The Act codifies the U.S. Department of Justice's “foreseeable harm” standard, specifying that an agency shall withhold information only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552(b) or if disclosure is prohibited by law. This provision also requires agencies to consider whether partial disclosure is possible if full disclosure is not possible, and to take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. The Act amends FOIA exemption 5 to specify that the deliberative process privilege does not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date of the request and must be released if requested.
The Tennessee Valley Authority issues a final rule amending its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to incorporate the statutory changes made to the FOIA by the Act. TVA exercises no discretion in implementing these statutory changes, therefore, public notice and comment is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For these same reasons, the 30-day delay in effective date provided for in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is waived.
Freedom of Information, Privacy, Government in the Sunshine.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, TVA amends 18 CFR part 1301 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 831-831dd, 5 U.S.C. 552.
(a) This subpart contains the rules that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. These rules should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Guidelines”). Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, are processed in accordance with TVA's Privacy Act regulations as well as under this subpart.
Records that the FOIA requires agencies to make available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through the TVA Web site. Each TVA organization is responsible for determining which of its records must be made publicly available, for identifying additional records of interest to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting and indexing such records. Each TVA organization shall ensure that its posted records and indices are reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. TVA has a FOIA Requester Service Center and a FOIA Public Liaison who can assist individuals in locating TVA records. Contact information for the FOIA Requester Service Center and Public Liaison is available at
(a)
(2) If you are making a request about yourself, see subpart B Privacy Act for additional requirements.
(3) Where a request for records pertains to another individual, a requester may receive greater access by submitting either a notarized authorization signed by that individual or a declaration made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 by that individual authorizing disclosure of the records to the requester, or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(ii) Whenever an agency refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it must document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral, informing the requester of the name(s) of the agency to which the record was referred, including that agency's FOIA contact information.
(3)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject-matter interest therein.
(d)
(e)
(i) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited processing could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, if made by a person who is primarily engaged in disseminating information;
(iii) The loss of substantial due process rights.
(2) A request for expedited processing may be made at any time. For a prompt determination, requests based on paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
(3) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. For example, under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that the requester is a person whose primary professional activity or occupation is information dissemination, though it need not be the requester's sole occupation. Such a requester also must establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request—one that extends beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. The existence of numerous articles published on a given subject can be helpful in establishing the requirement that there be an “urgency to inform” the public on the topic. As a matter of administrative discretion, TVA may waive the formal certification requirement.
(4) TVA will notify the requester within 10 calendar days of the receipt of a request for expedited processing of its decision whether to grant or deny expedited processing. If expedited processing is granted, the request must be given priority, placed in the processing track for expedited requests, and must be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, the agency must act on any appeal of that decision expeditiously.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial;
(2) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption applied by the agency in denying the request;
(3) An estimate of the volume of any records or information withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption; and
(4) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 1301.9(a) of this subpart, and a description of the appeal requirements.
(5) A statement notifying the requester of the assistance available from the agency's FOIA Public Liaison and the dispute resolution services offered by OGIS.
(g)
(h)
(2) If an exclusion is invoked, TVA will maintain an administrative record of the process of invocation and approval of the exclusion by OIP.
(a) TVA's records will be disclosed to any person upon request as provided in this section, except records that are exempt and are not made available if they are:
(1)(i) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy, and
(ii) Are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(2) Related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute—
(i)(A) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or
(B) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
(ii) If enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.
(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested;
(6) Personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(7) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only
(i) Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
(ii) Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication,
(iii) Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
(iv) Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source,
(v) Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or
(vi) Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;
(8) Contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(9) Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
(b) The availability of certain classes of nonexempt records is deferred for such time as TVA may determine is reasonable necessary to avoid interference with the accomplishment of its statutory responsibilities. Such records include bids and information concerning the identity and number of bids received prior to bid opening and award; and all negotiations in progress involving contracts or agreements for the acquisition or disposal of real or personal property by TVA prior to the conclusion of such negotiations. Any reasonably segregable portion of an available record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this paragraph.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(i) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4; or
(ii) TVA has a reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure.
(2) The notice must either describe the commercial information requested or include a copy of the requested records or portions of records containing the information. In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, the agency may post or publish a notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to inform the submitters of the proposed disclosure, instead of sending individual notifications.
(d)
(1) TVA determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA, and therefore will not be disclosed;
(2) The information has been lawfully published or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than the FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 of June 23, 1987; or
(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous. In such case, TVA will give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information within a reasonable number of days prior to a specified disclosure date.
(e)
(2) If a submitter has any objections to disclosure, it should provide TVA a detailed written statement that specifies all grounds for withholding the particular information under any exemption of the FOIA. In order to rely on Exemption 4 as basis for nondisclosure, the submitter must explain why the information constitutes a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is confidential.
(3) A submitter who fails to respond within the time period specified in the notice will be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. TVA is not required to consider any information received after the date of any disclosure decision. Any information provided by a submitter under this subpart may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
(f)
(g)
(1) A statement of the reasons why each of the submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;
(2) A description of the information to be disclosed or copies of the records as TVA intends to release them; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which must be a reasonable time after the notice.
(h)
(i)
(a)
(b)
(2) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
(3) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the Chief FOIA Officer and FOIA Appeals Official will take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
(c)
(d)
(e)
TVA will preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. TVA will not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
(a)
(i) Commercial use requesters;
(ii) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters; and
(iii) All other requesters.
(2) Different fees are assessed depending on the category. Requesters may seek a fee waiver. TVA will consider requests for fee waivers in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (k) of this section. To resolve any fee issues that arise under this section, TVA may contact a requester for additional information. TVA will ensure that searches, review, and duplication are conducted in the most efficient and the least expensive manner. TVA ordinarily will collect all applicable fees before sending copies of records to a requester. Requesters must pay fees by check or money order made payable to the Tennessee Valley Authority, or by another method as determined by TVA.
(b)
(1) Commercial use request is a request that asks for information for a use or a purpose that furthers a commercial, trade, or profit interest, which can include furthering those interests through litigation. TVA's decision to place a requester in the commercial use category will be made on a case-by-case basis based on the requester's intended use of the information. TVA will notify requesters of their placement in this category.
(2) Direct costs are those expenses that TVA incurs in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records in order to respond to a FOIA request. For example, direct costs include the salary of the employee performing the work (
(3) Duplication is reproducing a copy of a record, or of the information contained in it, necessary to respond to a FOIA request. Copies can take the form of paper, audiovisual materials, or electronic records, among others.
(4) Educational institution is any school that operates a program of scholarly research. A requester in this fee category must show that the request is made in connection with his or her role at the educational institution. TVA may seek verification from the requester that the request is in furtherance of scholarly research and TVA will advise requesters of their placement in this category.
(5) Noncommercial scientific institution is an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and that is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry. A requester in this category must show that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records are sought to further scientific research and are not for a commercial use. TVA will advise
(6) Representative of the news media is any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations that broadcast “news” to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate “news” and make their products available through a variety of means to the general public, including news organizations that disseminate solely on the Internet. A request for records supporting the news-dissemination function of the requester will not be considered to be for a commercial use. “Freelance” journalists who demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through a news media entity will be considered as a representative of the news media. A publishing contract would provide the clearest evidence that publication is expected; however, agencies can also consider a requester's past publication record in making this determination. TVA will advise requesters of their placement in this category.
(7) Search is the process of looking for and retrieving records or information responsive to a request. Search time includes page-by-page or line-by-line identification of information within records and the reasonable efforts expended to locate and retrieve information from electronic records.
(8) Review is the examination of a record located in response to a request in order to determine whether any portion of it is exempt from disclosure. Review time includes processing any record for disclosure, such as doing all that is necessary to prepare the record for disclosure, including the process of redacting the record and marking the appropriate exemptions. Review costs are properly charged even if a record ultimately is not disclosed. Review time also includes time spent both obtaining and considering any formal objection to disclosure made by a confidential commercial information submitter under § 1301.7 of this subpart, but it does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.
(c)
(1)
(ii) For each hour spent by personnel searching for requested records, including electronic searches that do not require new programming, the fees will be charged as follows: For time spent by clerical employees, the charge is $14.90 per hour. For time spent by supervisory and professional employees, the charge is $34.30 per hour.
(iii) TVA will charge the direct costs associated with conducting any search that requires the creation of a new computer program to locate the requested records. TVA must notify the requester of the costs associated with creating such a program, and the requester must agree to pay the associated costs before the costs may be incurred.
(iv) For requests that require the retrieval of records stored by TVA at a Federal records center operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), TVA will charge additional costs in accordance with the Transactional Billing Rate Schedule established by NARA.
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2)(i) If TVA fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits in responding to a request, it may not charge search fees, or, in the instances of requests from requesters described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, may not charge duplication fees, except as described in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this section.
(ii) If TVA has determined that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and the agency provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.
(iii) If TVA has determined that unusual circumstances, as defined by the FOIA, apply and more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, TVA may charge search fees, or, in the case of requesters described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, may charge duplication fees, if the following steps are taken. TVA must have provided timely written notice of unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA and TVA must have discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(B)(ii). If this exception is satisfied, TVA may charge all applicable fees incurred in the processing of the request.
(iv) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as
(3) No search or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.
(4) Except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use, TVA must provide without charge:
(i) The first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media); and
(ii) The first two hours of search.
(5) No fee will be charged when the total fee, after deducting the 100 free pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first two hours of search, is equal to or less than $25.
(e)
(2) If TVA notifies the requester that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a noncommercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable, designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. TVA is not required to accept payments in installments.
(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, but TVA estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, TVA will toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. TVA will inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.
(4) TVA will make available its FOIA Officer or FOIA Public Liaison to assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(2) When TVA determines or estimates that a total fee to be charged under this section will exceed $250.00, it may require that the requester make an advance payment up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before beginning to process the request. TVA may elect to process the request prior to collecting fees when it receives a satisfactory assurance of full payment from a requester with a history of prompt payment.
(3) Where a requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to any agency within 30 calendar days of the billing date, TVA may require that the requester pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and TVA may require that the requester make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee before TVA begins to process a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. Where TVA has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, it may require that the requester provide proof of identity.
(4) In cases in which TVA requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within 30 calendar days after the date of TVA's fee determination, the request will be closed.
(j)
(k)
(2) TVA will furnish records responsive to a request without charge or at a reduced rate when it determines, based on all available information, that the factors described in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section are satisfied:
(i) Disclosure of the requested information would shed light on the operations or activities of the
(ii) Disclosure of the requested information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of those operations or activities. This factor is satisfied when the following criteria are met:
(A) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not be meaningfully informative if nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.
(B) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public must be considered. TVA will presume that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.
(iii) The disclosure must not be primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. To determine whether disclosure of the requested information is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, TVA will consider the following criteria:
(A) TVA must identify whether the requester has any commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. A commercial interest includes any commercial, trade, or profit interest. Requesters will be given an opportunity to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.
(B) If there is an identified commercial interest, TVA must determine whether that is the primary interest furthered by the request. A waiver or reduction of fees is justified when the requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section are satisfied and any commercial interest is not the primary interest furthered by the request. TVA ordinarily will presume that when a news media requester has satisfied factors paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii), the request is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return will not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(3) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver of fees, a waiver must be granted for those records.
(4) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to TVA and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester must pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Hawthorne Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 13.1, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the Race for the Cure event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to allow safe roadway movement of event participants.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to noon on September 17, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0825 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Multnomah County, bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Hawthorne Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 13.1, at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate the Race for the Cure event. To facilitate this event, the draw of the subject bridge will be allowed to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open to marine traffic from 7 a.m. to noon on September 17, 2017. The Hawthorne Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 49 feet in the closed-to-navigation position referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule is in 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(v). Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The Coast Guard provided notice of and requested objections to this deviation to local mariners via the Local Notice Mariners, and email. No objections were submitted to the Coast Guard.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Morrison Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.8, at Portland, Oregon. The deviation is necessary to accommodate Multnomah County's (bridge owner) replacement of the bridge decking. This deviation allows the bridge to only open half of the span, single leaf, to allow for the replacement of bridge decking. The deviation also allows the vertical clearance to be reduced due to the project's containment system.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on September 5, 2017 through 7 p.m. on October 31, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0826 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email
Multnomah County has requested that the Morrison Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.8, be allowed to only open half the span, 92 feet, as opposed to a full opening, 185 feet, to accommodate the replacement of the bridge decking. The county has also requested to reduce the vertical clearance of the non-functioning leaf with scaffolding erected 10 feet below the lower bridge cord for a containment system, and require at least a two hour advance notice for an opening. The Morrison Bridge is a double bascule bridge. When the bascule span is in the closed-to-navigation position, the bridge provides 69 feet of vertical clearance, which will be reduced to 59 feet with the containment system in place. The normal operating schedule for the Morrison Bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(iv). The vertical clearance is above Columbia River Datum 0.0.
The deviation period is from 6 a.m. on September 5, 2017 through 7 p.m. on October 31, 2017. The deviation allows the Morrison Bridge operator to only open half the span for maritime traffic with at least a two hour advanced notice. Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.
Vessels able to pass through the Morrison Bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. A tug will be provided, upon request, to assist vessels through the single leaf span opening. The bridge will be able to open half the span for emergencies with a two hour notice and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridges 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 designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Smith Point Bridge across Narrow Bay, mile 6.1, at Brookhaven, New York. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate the annual 5K Run for Literacy and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for one hour.
This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 a.m. on September 9, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0822, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email
The Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay, has a vertical clearance of 18 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
The temporary deviation will allow the Smith Point Bridge to remain closed from 9 a.m. through 10 a.m. on September 9, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for multiple fireworks events launched in the vicinity of Penn's Landing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the waters of Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA. Enforcement of this safety zone is necessary and intended to enhance safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after these fireworks events. During the enforcement periods, no vessel may enter in or transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from September 3, 2017 to September 13, 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 MST2 Amanda Boone, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone (215) 271-4814, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for foregoing public comment with respect to this rule. Insufficient time remains to publish a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPMR) and allow for a public comment period before the events, which are scheduled to take place September 3, September 10, and September 13, 2017. The safety zone must be in effect on those dates in order to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Hazards may include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. For those reasons, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM.
For the reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to enhance the safety of the public, spectators, vessels, and navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after these fireworks events.
On September 3, September 10, and September 13, 2017 fireworks display events will take place in the vicinity of Penn's Landing in Philadelphia, PA. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in a portion of Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the public during the event. The safety zone includes all waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, bounded from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running east to west from points along the shoreline commencing at latitude 39°56′31.2″ N., longitude 075°08′28.1″ W.; thence westward to latitude 39°56′29″.1 N., longitude 075°07′56.5″ W., and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge where it crosses the Delaware River.
Access to this safety zone will be restricted during the specified date and time period. Only vessels or persons specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or designated representative may enter or remain in the regulated area. This safety zone will be enforced on September 3, September 10, and September 13, 2017 from 7:45 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. each day.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be unable to transit the safety zone for the duration of the fireworks events; however, this safety zone will impact a small designated area of the Delaware River, in Philadelphia, PA, for less than 2 hours during the fireworks events. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
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 calls for no 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 it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule adjusts rates in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to minor regulatory changes that are editorial or procedural in nature. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23, persons may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (b) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) To request permission to enter the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16. All persons and vessels in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its regulations that govern the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program. This rulemaking clarifies VA's procedures for continuing to fund SSVF Program services in communities that have lost grants due to the non-renewal or termination of services of an existing award to a grantee. VA can now award the non-renewed or deobligated funds to other existing SSVF grantees in or near the affected community. This award of non-renewed or deobligated funds prevents potential access issues associated with grant termination. This rulemaking also reduces the number of satisfaction surveys grantees are required to provide to participants in order to reduce the burden on grantees and participants.
This final rule is effective October 2, 2017.
John Kuhn, National Center for Homelessness Among Veterans, Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Office, 4100 Chester Avenue, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (877) 737-0111. (This is a toll-free number)
In a document published in the
We received several comments in support of the proposed rule. One commenter stated that the proposed rule was “needed from multiple perspectives, most importantly, in maintaining all momentum toward ending Veteran homelessness.” A commenter stated that “non-renewed and deobligated funds are critical to our community as we are seeing a strong inflow of newly homeless in our area.” Another commenter stated that the proposed rule would eliminate the “hoops to jump through and the grant will still be awarded to those who qualify.” A commenter agreed that reducing the number of surveys would yield a higher response rate. Lastly, a commenter stated that the proposed changes “are reasonable and would make an effective program more so.” We thank the commenters for supporting the rule.
One commenter recommended that VA revise the proposed rule to “take into account the impact of unexpected need, such as occurs in natural disasters where Federal Disaster Area designation is affirmed.” The commenter further recommended that VA distribute SSVF grant assistance to grantees serving in Federal disaster areas to assist veterans in need or who are displaced from their homes or become homeless “due to a natural disaster, regardless of whether the Veteran family meets the income eligibility requirements of SSVF.” Additionally, VA should focus the availability of SSVF funds to those veterans who were impacted by a natural disaster and do not have sufficient resources to relocate to “new housing because of trauma, an inability to access records, and/or an inability to access personal resources.” As previously stated in this rulemaking 38 U.S.C. 2044 is the authority that establishes the SSVF program. Under this program, VA may only provide assistance to very low-income veteran families. Section 2044(f)(6) defines “very low-income veteran family” to mean “a veteran family whose income does not exceed 50 percent of the median income for an area” as determined by VA. Because the SSVF funds are limited, VA cannot use these funds to assist veteran families that do not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under section 2044. Also, the loss of SSVF funds would adversely affect the veterans being served in the community whose deobligated funds were lost due to the funds being transferred to a different community that was affected by a natural disaster. We are not making any edits based on this comment.
Several commenters suggested that VA reconsider the requirement that 60% of funding support rapid re-housing of homeless veterans and 40% may be used for prevention of homelessness in rural communities and instead allow an even 50/50 split of funding because the needs for homeless veteran families in rural communities differ from those in urban settings. The commenters further stated that there is a housing shortage and it is difficult to use all of the SSVF funds, “particularly when Veterans who are in danger of literal homelessness present to our program and we are unable to assist them due to the 60/40 mandate. If that mandate was to be lifted, and we could focus a larger pool of resources on prevention, fewer of our clients would cycle back through as RRH.” Under section 2044(a)(4), SSVF
A commenter suggested that VA allow SSVF grantees to use funds to assist veterans who have been rated by VA as 100% service-connected disabled, are homeless, and over the income limit for the SSVF, because these veterans would benefit from the “intensive case management services to navigate through their housing issues.” SSVF funds may only be used to assist veteran families that meet the eligibility criteria in 38 U.S.C. 2044. By law, VA cannot use SSVF funds to assist veterans that are over the income limits of 38 U.S.C. 2044(f). However, homeless veterans who do not qualify for the SSVF program may receive assistance under the VA homeless providers grant and per diem program, part 61 of 38 CFR. This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule and we are not making any edits based on this comment.
Several commenters suggested that VA use SSVF funds to include aftercare case management, which would “be classified as continuing case management after the veteran is housed and/or case management after the veteran is exited from SSVF services.” SSVF is designed to resolve a veteran's household's housing crisis. Grantees make the decision when to exit a veteran's household from the SSVF program based on the household's ability to achieve housing stability. Longer term supports and case management are outside of the scope of SSVF program and grantees need to link participants to other VA resources that address veteran homelessness or to community health care and social services. Amendments to SSVF services are beyond the scope of the proposed rule. We are not making any edits based on this comment.
A commenter stated that the SSVF program guidelines can create barriers to providing services “due to the strict documentation requirements and extensive intake process.” The commenter recommended that VA allow concessions and latitude to case managers so that the lack of documentation provided by a veteran does not become an exclusionary factor to receive SSVF assistance. SSVF allows for a variety of substitutes for documentation requirements, including, at times, self-certification. However, VA has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that those enrolled in services are eligible and grantees adequately document the services provided. This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed rule and we are not making any edits based on this comment.
Another commenter indicated that it would be helpful if the rule included a “basic overview of the scoring criteria used in making decisions” for granting SSVF funds. The scoring criteria for supportive services grant applicants is found in 38 CFR 62.22, which we did not propose to amend in the proposed rule. Additionally, the scoring criteria for grantees applying for renewal of supportive services grants is found in 38 CFR 62.24, which we also did not propose to amend in the proposed rule. We are not making any edits based on this comment.
One commenter stated that reducing the number of satisfaction surveys would not yield a higher response rate. We respectfully disagree with the commenter and believe that reducing the number of satisfaction surveys might prompt participants of the SSVF to provide feedback of their experience with the program upon completion of the program. We are not making any edits based on this comment.
One commenter stated that proposed 38 CFR 62.36 should be further amended to state that “there should be a mail in option for Veterans who do not have access to email or internet.” Another commenter stated that older veterans did not want to create an email account for submitting the satisfaction surveys. VA is aware that not all veterans are able to submit the survey electronically and is also aware of the limitation of electronic submissions for the survey. For this reason, we have added a phone-based survey option for fiscal year 2017. We are not making any edits based on this comment.
A commenter stated that limiting the SSVF grant to “a 10% base admin rate is creating large deficits to the non-profits and sub-grantees who implement the program.” The commenter suggested that VA allow the use of “a non-profit's allowable federal rate (typically around 15%) as a standard for both the grantee and sub-grantees.” The commenter also stated that some sub-grantees have abandoned the SSVF grant due to losses the non-profits bear in administering the SSVF program. The limitations on costs for the administration of the SSVF program are stated in 38 CFR 62.10 and 62.70, which we did not propose to amend in the proposed rule. Any change to the limitations on administrative costs is beyond the scope of the proposed rule. We are not making any edits based on this comment.
A commenter said that limiting a veteran household to a single option of moving or storage expenses is counterintuitive because stored items will need to be moved from the storage facility to the new domicile once the domicile becomes available. The commenter asks “that these two costs be allowed as separate eligible expenses for each veteran household (as needed).” Veterans may receive both types of assistance under the current regulation. Section 62.34 addresses other supportive services, which includes moving costs under paragraph (d). Paragraph (d)(2) states that moving costs assistance includes “reasonable moving costs, such as truck rental, hiring a moving company, or short-term storage fees for a maximum of 3 months or until the participant is in permanent housing, whichever is shorter.” The storage of household items and the transportation of these items to the new domicile are two separate services that are included as part of the moving costs. Also, we did not propose to amend section 62.34 in the proposed rule and so any changes to this section are beyond the scope of the
A commenter said that the SSVF no longer covers the payment of property debt, which includes arrears and damages. However, that is incorrect: 38 CFR 62.34(a)(1) states, “rental assistance may be for rental payments that are currently due or are in arrears, and for the payment of penalties or fees incurred by a participant and required to be paid by the participant under an existing lease or court order.” Also, we did not propose to amend section 62.34 in the proposed rule and so any edits to this section are beyond the scope of the proposed rule. We are not making any edits based on this comment.
A commenter supported the rule, but stated that “if this assessment and reallocation of funding occurs in real time (
We are making a technical edit to 38 CFR 62.25. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) stated in part that “Such applicant or grantee must have the capacity and agree to provide immediate services to the affected community.” We are amending this sentence by deleting the term “immediate” and replacing it with “prompt” to make this term consistent with language used in existing program materials. We are making a similar edit to 38 CFR 62.80(d)(2)(i). We are also clarifying in § 62.25(d)(1) and § 62.80(d)(2)(i) that the grantee in the last sentence of each paragraph is the grantee who is offered the additional funds. The sentence as it was written in the proposed rule left some ambiguity as to who we were referencing. We are not making any edits to the meaning of the language in the proposed rule.
Based on the rationale set forth in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule and in this final rule, VA is adopting the proposed rule with the edits discussed in the previous paragraph.
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
This action contains provisions constituting collections of information, at 38 CFR 62.36, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The information collection requirements for § 62.36 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 2900-0757. However, this regulatory action includes a provision reducing the number of surveys used for this collection from 2 to 1. VA estimates the number of responses for the information collection will decrease from 5,625 to 2,813. VA is in the process of recertifying this collection number under a separate action.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This final rule only impacts those entities that choose to participate in the SSVF Program. Small entity applicants will not be affected to a greater extent than large entity applicants. Small entities must elect to participate, and it is considered a benefit to those who choose to apply. To the extent this final rule has any impact on small entities, it will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 603 and 604.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits, and 64.033, VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and
Administrative practice and procedure, Day care, Disability benefits, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—veterans, Heath care, Homeless, Housing, Indian—lands, Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, Manpower training program, Medicare, Medicaid, Public assistance programs, Public housing, Relocation assistance, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Social security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Travel and transportation expenses, Unemployment compensation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs is amending 38 CFR part 62 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, 2044, and as noted in specific sections.
(d) At its discretion, VA may award any non-renewed funds to an applicant or existing grantee. If VA chooses to award non-renewed funds to an applicant or existing grantee, funds will be awarded as follows:
(1) VA will first offer to award the non-renewed funds to the applicant or grantee with the highest grant score under the relevant Notice of Fund Availability that applies for, or is awarded a renewal grant in, the same community as, or a proximate community to, the affected community. Such applicant or grantee must have the capacity and agree to provide prompt services to the affected community. Under this § 62.25, the relevant Notice of Fund Availability is the most recently published Notice of Fund Availability which covers the geographic area that includes the affected community, or for multi-year grant awards, the Notice of Fund Availability for which the grantee, who is offered the additional funds, received the multi-year award.
(2) If the first such applicant or grantee offered the non-renewed funds refuses the funds, VA will offer to award the funds to the next highest-ranked such applicant or grantee, per the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and continue on in rank order until the non-renewed funds are awarded.
(c) * * *
(2) The grantee must provide each participant with a satisfaction survey, which the participant can submit directly to VA, within 30 days of such participant's pending exit from the grantee's program.
(d) * * *
(2) At its discretion, VA may re-advertise in a Notice of Fund Availability the availability of funds that have been deobligated under this section or award deobligated funds to an applicant or existing grantee. If VA chooses to award deobligated funds to an applicant or existing grantee, funds will be awarded as follows:
(i) VA will first offer to award the deobligated funds to the applicant or grantee with the highest grant score under the relevant Notice of Fund Availability that applied for or was awarded funds in the same community as, or proximate community to, the affected community. Such applicant or grantee must have the capacity and agree to provide prompt services to the affected community. Under this section the relevant Notice of Fund Availability is the most recently published Notice of Fund Availability which covers the geographic area that includes the affected community, or for multi-year grant awards, the most recently published Notice of Fund Availability which covers the geographic area that includes the affected community for which the grantee, who is offered the additional funds, received the multi-year award.
(ii) If the first such applicant or grantee offered the deobligated funds refuses the funds, VA will offer to award funds to the next highest-ranked such applicant or grantee, per to the criteria in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, and continue on in rank order until all deobligated funds are awarded.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the July 3, 2017, direct final rule approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available control technology (RACT) approval for a volatile organic compound (VOC) emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
The direct final rule published on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30747), is withdrawn effective September 1, 2017.
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, email
In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted by August 2, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received an adverse comment prior to the close of the comment period and, therefore, is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is redesignating the Indiana portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY, nonattainment area (hereafter, “the Cincinnati-Hamilton area”) to attainment for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective September 1, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0513. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3901,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On August 19, 2016, Indiana submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 1997 PM
EPA is taking several actions related to redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM
EPA has previously approved Indiana's PM
EPA has previously approved the 2005 primary PM
In
EPA is redesignating the Indiana portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rulemaking, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state of planning requirements for this PM
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
40 CFR part 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(w) * * *
(3) Indiana's 2005 NO
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, certain information collection requirements associated with Stipulation VII.C of the amendment to Appendix B in part 1 of the Commission's rules. This notice is consistent with the final rule notice published in the
47 CFR part 1, Appendix B, Stipulation VII.C, published at 81 FR 59146, August 29, 2016, is effective on September 1, 2017.
For additional information, contact Cathy Williams by email at
This document announces that, on July 14, 2017, OMB approved certain information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 14, 2017, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR part 1, Appendix B, Stipulation VII.C. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1238. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
The following are the information collection requirements in connection with the amended provisions of Appendix B of Part 1 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR pt.1, App. B):
• Stipulation VII.C of the amended Collocation Agreement provides that proposals to mount a small antenna on a traffic control structure (
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission adopts rules to streamline and harmonize the Commission's license renewal and service continuity rules for the Wireless Radio Services (WRS). This unified regulatory framework includes: establishing a consistent standard for renewing wireless licenses; setting forth safe harbors providing expedited renewal for licensees that meet their initial term construction requirement and generally remain operating at or above that level; adopting consistent
Effective October 2, 2017, except for the amendments to §§ 1.949, 1.950, and 1.953, which contain information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which the Commission will announce by publishing a document in the
Joyce Jones at
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order (
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to
The Commission will send a copy of the
1. Commission licensing records reflect that, over the next 10 years, the Commission can expect more than 50,000 renewal applications to be filed by geographic-area licensees and more than 625,000 by site-based licensees. By its
2. The Commission's current renewal requirements vary widely. Some service rules include comprehensive filing and processing procedures, while others contain only minimal guidance. For example, some radio services have evaluation criteria for a renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding but no procedures for filing competing applications. Some services require a detailed showing that the licensee has provided substantial service during the license term. The renewal rules for some of the Commission's newer services generally require the licensee to be providing service or operating on an ongoing basis, after construction, during the license term.
3. In an
4.
5. More specifically, for renewal at the end of an initial license term, the licensee must demonstrate that it timely constructed to any level(s) required by the service-specific rules and, thereafter, consistent with the Commission's permanent discontinuance rules, continuously provided service or operated at or above the required level(s) for the remainder of the license term. For subsequent renewals, the licensee must demonstrate that, over the license term at issue, it continuously provided service to the public or operated under the license to meet the licensee's private, internal communications needs, at or above the level required to meet the final construction requirement during the initial term of the license. In all events, the licensee also must certify that its service or operations are continuing. This requirement is reflected in the new
6. The renewal standard the Commission adopts today follows the approach the Commission adopted in many of its proceedings for new wireless services over the past decade. Beginning with the
7. As the Commission has stated in a number of decisions, a licensee's renewal obligations are distinct from its performance (also known as construction or buildout) requirements. Many of the Commission's specific service rules require performance showings to be made at the midpoint and end of an initial license term regarding population or area covered. For some services, licensees must demonstrate, or may elect to demonstrate, substantial service as their performance requirement during their initial license term. Under the Commission's performance requirement rules, a licensee generally provides a snapshot in time (usually a date in close proximity to, but no later than, the construction deadline) of the level of service that it is providing to the public or its level of operation. By contrast, the showing for renewal—also sometimes referred to as a substantial service showing—requires more detailed information regarding a licensee's services or operations and related matters for its entire license period. Thus, under the Commission's current rules, those licensees with a substantial service performance requirement at the end of their initial license term are subject to two distinct substantial service requirements, one to support their renewal application and one for performance purposes. The renewal standard the Commission adopts today and the accompanying discussion should make it more readily apparent to licensees that the showing required for renewal is distinct from the showing required to meet a performance requirement.
8. As the Commission stated in the
9. In contrast, the Commission finds it is no longer necessary to provide any sort of modified renewal requirements for Broadband Radio Service (BRS) licensees as the Commission had proposed in the
10.
11. The Commission agrees that clearer and more certain renewal processes will benefit both licensees and the Commission and concludes that adopting a set of safe harbors—based on licensee certifications—will serve the public interest by reducing filing burdens on licensees and concentrating scarce Commission resources on reviewing renewal filings that warrant close scrutiny. Accordingly, the Commission adopts four safe harbors to accommodate four license renewal scenarios by which a renewal applicant can meet the renewal standard adopted in this
12. Each safe harbor scenario is based on three certifications, which are subject to the Form 601 condition that “[w]illful false statements made on this form or any attachments are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment (18 U.S.C. 1001) and/or revocation of any station license or construction permit (47 U.S.C. 312(a)(1)), and/or forfeiture (47 U.S.C. 503).” If the renewal applicant, in good faith, can make all three certifications, its renewal application will be subject to routine processing, and no further detailed renewal showing will be required as part of the renewal application. The first certification in each scenario addresses the renewal applicant's ongoing provision of service and/or operations, and is tailored to the particular nature of licenses covered under a given safe harbor. The second certification requires the licensee to certify that no permanent discontinuance of service or operation (as defined below as an unbroken failure to provide service or operate over a
13.
14. A site-based WRS licensee will meet the Commission's renewal standard if it can certify that it is continuing to operate consistent with the licensee's most recently filed construction notification (or most recent authorization, when no construction notification is required), and make the certifications regarding permanent discontinuance and substantial compliance with Commission rules and policies that are applicable to all renewal applicants seeking to avail themselves of one of the renewal safe harbors. Consistent with the Commission's treatment of wireless providers using geographic licenses as discussed below, licensees who temporarily reduce their operations for fewer than 180 days may avail themselves of the safe harbor. The Commission concludes that this safe harbor for site-based WRS licensees is in the public interest and will expedite the renewal process for licensees, ensure spectrum is being used efficiently to provide service to the public or for private internal needs, and allow Commission staff to concentrate scarce resources on renewal applications that warrant heightened scrutiny. Moreover, applying the safe harbor process to site-based services will ensure that renewed licenses in these services are being operated, and if they are not, the licensee must submit a renewal showing as discussed below. This safe harbor may be used by any site-based WRS license in the services listed in Appendix G of the
15.
16. Accordingly, the Commission adopts a safe harbor for WRS providers using geographic licenses consistent with the approach taken in the
17.
18. Accordingly, the Commission adopts a safe harbor for WRS licensees using their geographic licenses for private, internal systems. A geographically licensed WRS licensee using its license for private, internal purposes will meet the renewal standard if it can make the following certifications. For a licensee in its initial license term with an interim performance requirement, the licensee must certify that (1) it has met its interim performance requirement and that over the portion of the license term following the interim performance requirement (up until the deadline for meeting the final performance requirement), the licensee continues to use its facilities to further the licensee's private, internal business or public interest/public safety needs at or above the level required to meet its interim performance requirement, and (2) it has met its final performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to further the licensee's private business or public interest/public safety needs at or above the level required by its final performance requirement through the end of the license term. For a licensee in its initial license term with no interim performance requirement, the licensee must certify that it has met its final performance requirement and continues to use its facilities to further the licensee's private business or public interest/public safety needs at or above the level required by its final performance requirement through the end of the license term. For a licensee in any subsequent license term, the licensee must certify that it continues to use its facilities to further the licensee's private business or public interest/public safety needs at or above the level required to meet its last performance requirement. Consistent with the treatment of wireless providers using geographic licenses as discussed above, licensees who temporarily drop below their construction benchmark for fewer than 180 days may avail themselves of the safe harbor. In addition, the licensee must make the certifications regarding permanent discontinuance and substantial compliance with Commission rules and policies that are applicable to all renewal applicants seeking to avail themselves of one of the renewal safe harbors. This safe harbor may be used by geographic area licensees in the Wireless Radio Services listed in Appendix H of the
19.
20. To this end, the Commission adopts an approach that applies to WRS licensees with partitioned or disaggregated licenses when there is no performance requirement. Such a licensee will meet the renewal standard if it can satisfy the following safe harbor. The licensee must certify that it uses and continues to use its facilities either to provide service to the public or to further the licensee's private, internal business or public interest/public safety needs. Thus, although the Commission does not impose a specific performance requirement for such licensees at renewal of the current license term, in order to avail itself of the streamlined safe harbor renewal process for any subsequent license term, a licensee without a performance requirement must demonstrate some level of service or operation over the subsequent license term. In addition, the licensee must make the certifications regarding permanent discontinuance (as defined below) and substantial compliance with Commission rules and policies that are applicable to all renewal applicants seeking to avail themselves of one of the renewal safe harbors. This safe harbor may be used by any WRS licensee with a partitioned or disaggregated license without an associated performance requirement. Any licensee that cannot meet the requirements of the safe harbor must submit a renewal showing as discussed below.
21. The Commission recognizes that this safe harbor, unlike the others, does not prescribe a specific level of service or operation required for renewal. As the Commission has explained, however, “[t]he goal of our construction requirements in both the partitioning and disaggregation contexts is to ensure that the spectrum is used to the same degree that would have been required had the partitioning or disaggregation transaction not taken place.” In the scenario addressed here, the partitioner or disaggregator has already met the associated performance requirement for the license; any additional construction undertaken by the partitionee or disaggregatee exceeds the relevant performance benchmark for the original license and thus does not contravene the goal of the Commission's construction requirement in the partitioning and disaggregation context. However, the Commission contemplates taking action if it appears that parties to a partitioning or disaggregation are attempting to abuse its rules.
22.
23. In the
24. The renewal showing proposed in the
25. Many commenters object to the adoption of this renewal showing for all WRS licensees. These commenters argue that the proposed renewal showing is complex and would impose substantial costs and burdens on licensees. Other commenters assert that the proposed renewal process is unclear and creates uncertainty for licensees. Still other commenters maintain that the proposed process requests information already in the Commission's possession, requests detailed information that licensees do not maintain, and may require disclosure of competitively sensitive information. The Commission acknowledges commenters' many concerns regarding a general requirement that all WRS licensees submit detailed renewal showings and have concluded that, in many cases, streamlined applications containing the required certifications for safe harbor treatment will be sufficient to ensure that the Commission renews licenses in the public interest, consistent with the Act. The Commission emphasizes that licensees that can take advantage of one of the “safe harbor” renewal applications described above will not be required to submit a renewal showing as part of their renewal applications. Rather, only licensees that cannot satisfy one of the enumerated safe harbors will be required to file a detailed renewal showing. To fulfill the Commission's statutory mandate to ensure efficient spectrum use consistent with the public interest, where a licensee does not satisfy one of the streamlined processes, the Commission must undertake a closer examination of a licensee's record of service or operation over its license term. Consistent with the Commission's conclusions in the AWS-4, H Block, AWS-3, and 600 MHz proceedings, the Commission finds that the renewal showing it adopts today, applied in the limited circumstances described herein, is in the public interest and its benefits outweigh any likely costs.
26. Accordingly, licensees that cannot satisfy the renewal standard under one of the enumerated safe harbors can nonetheless meet the renewal standard by demonstrating that they are providing service to the public (or, when allowed under the relevant service rules or pursuant to waiver, using the spectrum for private, internal communication), using the following renewal showing, as applicable:
(1) The level and quality of service/operation provided by the applicant (
(2) the date service/operation commenced, whether service/operation was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
(3) the extent to which service/operation is provided to/in rural areas;
(4) the extent to which service/operation is provided to/in tribal lands; and
(5) any other factors associated with a licensee's level of service to the public/level of operation.
27. Each of the factors listed above to be considered in a renewal showing directly relates to the renewal standard the Commission adopts today—service or operation over the license term. The Commission will consider the totality of all the factors on a case-by-case basis to determine if a licensee has demonstrated over the course of its license term that it has provided and continues to provide service to the public, or has operated and continues to operate under the license to meet the licensee's private, internal communications needs.
28. In the
29. The Commission disagrees with commenters that argue that the option of filing a full renewal showing would be contrary to the Commission's original proposal for site-based services. Under the Commission's prior proposal, if a site-based licensee could not make the requisite certification, the renewal application could not be granted and the spectrum would be returned to the Commission. Under the renewal framework the Commission adopts today, if a site-based licensee cannot meet the requirements of the safe harbor, it may choose to file a renewal showing to explain why it should
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. To aid in this evaluation, the Commission proposed a detailed submission of documents regarding compliance by the licensee and certain defined affiliates. Industry commenters uniformly opposed adoption of the proposed regulatory compliance demonstration as a prerequisite to renewal on the basis that it is onerous and unduly burdensome and could impose significant costs, particularly on rural and regional carriers.
36. The Commission has a statutory duty to ensure that licensees substantially comply with all applicable Commission rules and policies and the Act. At the same time, where possible and practicable, the Commission seeks to streamline the existing renewal application processes and minimize filing burdens on licensees. In lieu of the regulatory compliance demonstration proposed in the
37.
38. The
39. The Commission deletes the remaining service-specific comparative renewal rules and prohibits the filing of competing renewal applications for all WRS. This approach is consistent with the Commission's determinations in many other commercial wireless service proceedings over the last ten years—including those for the AWS-3 and AWS-4 Bands, the H Block, the 600 MHz Band, and the 700 MHz Commercial Services Band—and with the elimination of comparative renewal rules applicable to the Cellular Service. The same logic that the Commission used in exempting those bands from comparative renewal applications likewise applies to the remaining WRS bands. The Commission previously found, and commenters agree here, that the public interest is not served by the filing of time-consuming and costly competing applications, and a prohibition on competing applications will “protect[] the public interest without creating incentives for speculators to file `strike' applications.”
40. The few commenters that support retention of the comparative renewal application rules argue that, without the ability to file competing applications, there is no way to discover disqualifying facts about incumbent licensees. The renewal requirements the Commission adopts today, however, will provide it with ample information to determine whether a particular license renewal is in the public interest. Some commenters also argue that competing applications are rare, but this only strengthens the rationale to eliminate the outdated rules. The Commission finds that the best course is to remove the comparative renewal rules and harmonize the approach across spectrum bands—many of which, as discussed above, already prohibit the filing of competing applications. In the event that an entity lacks standing to file a petition to deny a WRS license renewal application, it may still bring relevant facts to the attention of the Commission by means of an informal filing.
41. If a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum will be returned to the Commission as discussed below, allowing parties that may have been inclined to file a competing application to participate in the auction of spectrum recovered from geographic licensees or apply for spectrum recovered from a Cellular or site-based licensee.
42.
43. One overarching goal in this proceeding is to ensure that valued spectrum resources are rapidly put to their highest and best use. A second goal in this proceeding is to provide licensees with certainty and clarity regarding the rules that apply to them and the consequences for failing to meet those rules. The Commission's existing spectrum reversion rule employed today serves these dual goals. If a licensee cannot meet the renewal standard (via safe harbor or renewal showing) or it has permanently discontinued service, or its regulatory compliance certification is insufficient, its renewal application cannot be granted, and its licensed spectrum will return automatically to the Commission.
44.
45. All WRS licensees are currently subject to the Part 1 rule governing permanent discontinuance, which provides that an authorization automatically terminates, without specific Commission action, if service is “permanently discontinued.” To promote service continuity, the Commission replaces disparate service-specific rules dealing with permanent discontinuance with a standardized rule for all WRS licensees. This rule will work in concert with construction and renewal obligations to ensure that licensees provide service in a timely manner, continue to provide service over the term of the license, and do not discontinue service for such an extended period of time that it should be deemed permanent.
46. Current service-specific rules do not clearly and consistently define permanent discontinuance resulting in license termination, with a few services defining the term and many services completely lacking any definition. Thus, after meeting any service-specific construction and renewal requirements, some licensees in a service whose rules provide no definition of “permanent” discontinuance might conclude that they are permitted to discontinue service for long periods of time, and that such suspension of service would not trigger automatic license termination. In contrast, other licensees/competitors in a service whose rules define “permanent” discontinuance as specific amount of time during which operations were suspended (
47. Most but not all commenters support a uniform regulatory framework governing permanent discontinuance. Commenters disagree, however, on the appropriate discontinuance period to be applied to the various Wireless Radio Services, with some commenters supporting the Commission's proposed time periods while other commenters seek a 365-day discontinuance period for all WRS licensees.
48. Commenters are generally supportive of the Commission's proposal to apply the permanent discontinuance rule commencing on the date a licensee makes its initial construction showing or notification. Some commenters, however, ask that the Commission commence the permanent discontinuance period on the date of a licensee's construction deadline, while Sprint suggests that the Commission use a licensee's final construction deadline date.
49. Section 101.305 of the rules states that common carrier licensees in certain services must notify the Commission of involuntary discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service within 48 hours, and that voluntary discontinuance by a common carrier licensee in the identified services must occur only with prior Commission approval, under the procedures of part 63 of the Commission's rules. AT&T asks that the Commission take this opportunity to delete § 101.305, arguing that it is both obsolete and duplicative of other rules, specifically § 101.65 and that the rule's concern for protecting “communities” is misplaced.
50. After reviewing the extensive record in this proceeding, the Commission finds that the public interest will be best served by adopting a uniform regulatory framework governing service continuity. The Commission therefore adopts new § 1.953 as it appears in Appendix A of the
51. The Commission replaces the existing hodgepodge of discontinuance rules with a unified regulatory framework that ensures regulatory parity across services and license types and applies the rules on a per-license basis. Under the new rules for all geographically licensed radio services, permanent discontinuance of service for a given license will be defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate or, in the case of WRS licensees providing service to customers, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier. The Commission adopted an identical framework for AWS-4, H Block, AWS-3, and 600 MHz, which are all licensed on a geographic basis. In addition, for all radio services licensed by site, permanent discontinuance of service for a given license will be defined as 365 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate or, in the case of WRS licensees providing service to customers, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier. A licensee's authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if it permanently discontinues service.
52. The rules distinguish between wireless providers providing service to subscribers and private licensee operation. In accordance with the Commission's proposal, for wireless providers, the Commission defines “permanently discontinued” as a period of 180 or 365 consecutive days (for geographic and site-based licenses, respectively) during which the licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to, the provider. The Commission adopts a different approach for wireless licensees that use their licenses for private, internal communications, however, because such licensees generally do not provide service to unaffiliated subscribers. For such private, internal communications, the Commission defines “permanent discontinuance” as a period of 180 or 365 consecutive days (for geographic and site-based licenses respectively) during which the licensee does not operate.
53. The Commission concludes that different rules for geographic versus site-based licenses are warranted by their differing operational characteristics. Under a geographic license, a licensee constructs and operates its entire network in the market under the umbrella of its geographic license. As MetroPCS explains, wireless carriers constantly discontinue individual sites or channels as they reconfigure their networks to increase and adjust capacity. The Commission's goal in this proceeding is not to hamper a licensee's normal network design and reconfiguration processes. Licensees should continue to have the necessary flexibility to add or remove network facilities consistent with their business strategies and network planning processes. Thus, for geographic licensees, the period of discontinuance will not start for a given license until all network facilities operated under that license within the licensed area are discontinued.
54. By contrast, site-based licensees do not have the same flexibility as geographic licensees to decommission individual facilities. Site-based licensees are authorized to transmit from a particular location or over a particular path and have little flexibility to alter these parameters; ceasing operation on a frequency or band constitutes a total cessation of all service or operation under the site-based license and, unless otherwise provided, would therefore start the clock for measuring the length of discontinued service/operations on that licensed frequency/band at that location/path. Thus, to provide site-based licensees with the necessary flexibility to repair, modify, or upgrade their sites without fear of triggering a discontinuance period that could lead to the automatic termination of their license, the Commission finds that site-based licensees should be afforded a 365-day discontinuance period.
55. The Commission does not find that geographic licensees need a 365-day discontinuance period to adequately conduct technology upgrades and to avoid unfairly penalizing licensees that operate in remote or highly seasonal areas of the country that may be uninhabited for more than half the year. Given the flexibility geographic licensees have to
56. The Commission agrees with commenters who propose that the discontinuance rule should begin to apply on the date a licensee must meet its first performance requirement benchmark,
57. In most cases, the first performance requirement benchmark is the interim or final construction deadline for geographic licenses, or the 12-month construction deadline for site-based licenses. In a few cases, licensees have partitioned and/or disaggregated their licenses under current rules, and one or more of the resulting licenses does not have a construction deadline. Under the new renewal standard these licenses must be operating by the end of the next full renewal term after their current license term to warrant renewal. As such, the discontinuance rules will apply to these partitioned/disaggregated licenses at that date. This approach provides consistent treatment in that licensees need only be concerned about permanent discontinuance after they are required to be operating (whether at their next construction deadline or renewal). The Commission adopted the same approach for AWS-4, H Block, AWS-3, and 600 MHz.
58. In services where the Commission's rules currently contain no definition of permanent discontinuance, some licensees may have met their interim construction deadline, but have yet to reach their final construction deadline and may have discontinued operations as part of a business strategy or network plan. Absent a definition of permanent discontinuance, these licensees might have concluded that they could discontinue service for a long period without fear of automatic license termination. While all covered WRS licensees must comply with the permanent discontinuance rules going forward, it is equitable to provide certain existing licensees with additional time to come into compliance with the rules, if necessary. Thus, in all services that do not currently have an explicit definition of permanent discontinuance, (
59. The Commission declines to adopt Sprint's request to apply the permanent discontinuance rules only after a licensee's final construction date. The permanent discontinuance rules are designed to ensure that once a licensee is required to begin operations or provide service to the public by,
60. The Commission exclude EBS from application of the new permanent discontinuance rule because this service presents unique issues that are under consideration in a separate proceeding. The Commission finds that it should consider EBS permanent discontinuance policies in the context of the comprehensive EBS rulemaking. For the reasons stated above in the discussion of the renewal policy rules, the Commission finds that BRS licenses and the Motorola-held partitioned and/or disaggregated Part 80 VHF Public Coast licenses should be subject to the rules and policies adopted herein regarding permanent discontinuance.
61. Section 101.305 contains a number of requirements related to discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of services for some or all Part 101 services. The bulk of these provisions relate to involuntary and voluntary discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of public communications services and required filings to be made with the Commission. In particular, § 101.305(b) requires that covered licensees subject to Title II of the Act must obtain prior approval from the Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in part 63 of the Commission's rules before they may voluntarily discontinue, reduce, or impair public communications services to a community or part of a community. Because § 101.305 implicates the provision of service pursuant to Title II of the Act and given the limited record addressing this rule, the Commission makes no changes to this rule section at this time.
62.
63.
64. The Commission declines, however, to adopt CCA's proposal for an automatic six-month extension period or case-by-case review. An automatic extension of the permissible discontinuance period of six months runs contrary to the goals of timely and efficient use of the nation's scare spectrum resources. Although unique circumstances may arise that necessitate a period of discontinuance beyond what is automatically permitted under the new rules, these circumstances can adequately be addressed by the existing waiver processes.
65.
66.
67. Verizon asks the Commission to expand the definition of operation to include facilities that are “available” to carry customer traffic but are in “standby” mode and only used on an “as-needed basis depending on capacity demands.” Verizon argues that these systems are needed to allow licensees to maximize efficiency of their spectrum resources and network investment and maintain optimal performance levels while providing seamless service to customers across multiple licenses in the same market. The Commission declines to expand its definition of operation as requested by Verizon. As the Commission explained previously, at a minimum, provision of service requires a customer or other person to serve. That a network is capable of service in “standby mode” or on an “as-needed basis” without providing actual service to a customer or other person is insufficient to constitute service for purposes of the Commission's permanent discontinuance rules. Moreover, the Commission does not license spectrum on a network basis; rather, it evaluates operational obligations on a license-by-license basis, and thus licensees must maintain continuity of service or operations on a license-by-license basis.
68. In the WRS Reform NPRM, the Commission proposed a new rule, § 1.950, to standardize and clarify its partitioning and disaggregation rules across services in which such activities are permitted. As part of this proposal, the Commission contemplated establishing consistent performance obligations (
69. At present, there are a wide variety of Wireless Radio Services under the Commission's authority that are subject to equally varied construction and performance obligations. The Commission's current partitioning rules provide licensees several options to meet their construction obligations: (1) Independent Construction—the parties may independently elect to satisfy the construction requirements for their respective partitioned license areas and failure to perform subjects a licensee in this context to forfeiture of its partitioned license; (2) Collective Construction—the parties may collectively share responsibility for meeting the construction requirement for the entire geographic area and if the parties collectively fail, then both will be subject to a range of penalties, including possible license forfeiture; or (3) Partitioner-only Construction—the partitioner may satisfy the construction requirement for the entire pre-partitioned geographic area. Many services allow this third option, but the repercussions for failure to perform vary significantly. In some instances, partitionees must still satisfy a substantial service requirement for the partitioned area at renewal. In others, partitionees can argue that they are not obligated to provide service to obtain license renewal since only the non-performing partitioner is subject to forfeiture of its license at renewal.
70. Licensees also currently have multiple options under the Commission's disaggregation rules to meet applicable construction obligations: (1) One-party Construction—parties can assign responsibility to either the disaggregator or the disaggregatee, and construction by that party is deemed sufficient for both. Generally, if the designated party
71. A majority of the commenters that addressed the partitioning and disaggregation construction requirements in the
72. The Commission's experience with partitioning and disaggregation indicates that parties can, and sometimes do, manipulate the current requirements in ways that result in spectrum in some services lying fallow for long periods of time, contrary to the Commission's stated goal of maximizing efficient spectrum use. For instance, under the current rules, parties have been free to disaggregate a small sliver of a spectrum license over the entire geographic licensed area and assign the entire construction requirement to that particular license. In that circumstance, only that small sliver of spectrum has been subject to license termination or forfeiture, while the bulk of the license has not been subject to any construction requirement. The Commission finds that none of the comments effectively addresses the central rationale for proposing to modify the partitioning and disaggregation performance requirements,
73. In lieu of requiring each party to a partitioning or disaggregation arrangement to certify that it will independently satisfy service-specific construction and/or performance requirements, the Commission will afford such parties the additional option of sharing service-specific performance requirements.
74. The Commission agrees with Verizon that imposing an independent construction requirement on both parties to a partitioning or disaggregation arrangement, as proposed in draft § 1.950(g) in the
75. The Commission finds that the new rule adequately addresses commenters' arguments that proposed § 1.950(g) would deter secondary market activity, especially with respect to small, rural licensees for whom buildout requirements may be prohibitively costly. The Commission also finds that its rule adequately addresses Blooston's arguments underlying its recommendation that the Commission exempt rural areas from the rule. The revised rule allows parties to partitioning and disaggregation arrangements to share service-specific construction requirements. The Commission concludes that the additional flexibility of the revised rule will continue to enable service providers to configure geographic area and spectrum block licenses to suit their unique operational needs, which includes using partitioning and disaggregation to open up licensing opportunities to rural carriers.
76. The Commission declines to retain “partitioner only” construction rules (wherein a partitioner can certify that it has met or will meet the construction requirement for the entire pre-partitioned area) to encourage carriers to take risks in rural markets. This proposal would appear to allow a partitionee in certain services to hold a license for the partitioned area without deploying facilities on the spectrum for a significant period of time, even if the licensee must be able to certify that it is providing service at renewal, or otherwise make a showing to justify license renewal. The Commission concludes that the better way to promote service to rural markets is to ensure that all license holders—at least during the initial license term, and in circumstances where the original licensee has not previously satisfied the construction requirement for the entire geographic area or spectrum block—have, directly or indirectly, an obligation to construct and operate facilities on the spectrum.
77. The Commission declines to adopt CTIA's proposal that the Commission should exempt a licensee's wholly owned subsidiaries or commonly controlled affiliates when they partner with the licensee to divide the license. The Commission's experience has shown that this type of intra-corporate family partitioning and disaggregation has proven particularly susceptible to manipulation for spectrum warehousing purposes simply because the parties to the division are commonly controlled. Adoption of CTIA's proposal risks undermining rather than advancing the Commission's objective of eliminating spectrum warehousing. Moreover, the addition of the new option to permit shared construction responsibility by a
78. The Commission does not adopt the suggestions raised by MetroPCS and Verizon that the Commission exempt Broadband PCS from the proposed rule based on the argument that the substantial service requirement at renewal discourages parties to a partitioning arrangement from warehousing spectrum in the manner the Commission seeks to preclude. The Commission concludes that these licensees will be no worse off under a regulatory framework that holds all licensees to comparable requirements. Many services still allow parties to a partitioning or disaggregation arrangement to assign the performance requirement to one of the parties and thereby allow the other to delay or avoid construction in that party's portion of the license (whether geography or spectrum) if they so choose. This problem exists in numerous services, even if some service rules may discourage so-called free riders. By this
79. The Commission also declines to adopt CTIA's proposal to prohibit parties from assuming construction and performance obligations for an entire license area or spectrum block unless they also hold spectrum covering a majority of that same geographic area or spectrum block. CTIA does not provide evidence demonstrating why this approach would be more effective at preventing spectrum warehousing than the consistent approach envisioned by the partitioning and disaggregation rules adopted today, nor does it acknowledge or address the potential administrative burdens that would be placed on applicants and on Commission staff in addressing such arrangements. The Commission believes that adoption of CTIA's proposal would provide greater uncertainty in the spectrum marketplace and would not consistently and successfully prevent spectrum warehousing.
80. The Commission also declines to exempt existing partitioning and disaggregation arrangements from application of the requirements of § 1.950(g) as adopted today, and apply the rule only prospectively and only to future partitioning and disaggregation arrangements. By adopting § 1.950(g) as revised, the Commission intends to prevent spectrum warehousing and ensure that future transactions facilitate the availability of spectrum in the marketplace for licensees who are most highly motivated to use it. By this action, the Commission seeks to resolve loopholes in the current partitioning and disaggregation rules that could be and have been manipulated to avoid the very construction and substantial service obligations that promote efficient spectrum use. However, the Commission agrees that its rules should not be applied retroactively to disrupt transactions that have already been negotiated based on the pre-existing rules and submitted to the Commission for approval. Specifically, § 1.950(g) will be applied to partitioning and disaggregation arrangements reflected in applications filed on or after the effective date of the new rule, and not to any arrangements reflected in an already granted application or in an application filed before the effective date of new § 1.950(g).
81. The Commission makes no changes in response to AT&T's argument that new entrants will be discouraged from acquiring spectrum through partitioning or disaggregation when it is late in the original license term, and there is little time to fulfill the construction obligation. The Commission concludes that this concern is related not to partitioning and disaggregation rules, but to the current build out rules, which provide that the performance requirements associated with a license are not reduced or extended as a result of any secondary market transaction, including one near the end of a license term. The rule modifications do not alter those obligations.
82. Finally, the Commission does not address the suggestion by Sprint and AT&T that licensees that have acquired previously partitioned and/or disaggregated licenses be allowed, as a matter of processing, to consolidate the subdivided parts into the original license configuration. The Commission finds this proposal to be beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is narrowly focused on standardizing and clarifying the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules across services. The question of whether, and how, a partitioned or disaggregated license can be reconstituted as a matter or processing can be addressed by Commission staff under current rules and licensing systems.
83. Commenting parties in this proceeding that addressed proposed § 1.950 focused solely on proposed § 1.950(g). Accordingly, based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission adopt § 1.950 largely as proposed in the
84. In the
85. At the time that the
86. Because there are no remaining pending competing renewal applications, there is no further action needed on the Commission's part to dismiss such applications.
87. The Commission directed incumbent licensees to continue to file timely renewal applications as required by applicable Commission rules during the pendency of this rulemaking. The Commission further directed that
88. Notwithstanding the Commission's statement in the
89. Petitions for reconsideration of the actions taken by the
90. The Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. petition has been mooted by the fact that Kankakee withdrew its renewal application for a Cellular license authorization in the Kankakee, Illinois market, and Tisdale was granted a Cellular license for that market. The Commission previously approved the withdrawal of the petition for reconsideration filed by Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding, Inc., James McCotter, and NTCH-CA, Inc., along with another petition for reconsideration filed by the same parties on October 22, 2010, pursuant to a settlement agreement. The WCAI petition for partial reconsideration was addressed by the
91. The Commission directs the Bureau to take the necessary steps to cease conditioning the grant of renewal applications on the outcome of this proceeding. In addition, the Commission directs the Bureau to take the necessary steps to remove the condition from already granted renewal applications or otherwise make clear on the face of such licenses that such condition is no longer valid.
92. The
93. The Commission assessed the effects of the policies adopted in the
94. The Commission will send a copy of this
95. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a FRFA, set forth in Appendix B of the
96. This proceeding shall continue to be treated as “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
97.
98. Accordingly,
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
Communications common carriers, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 310, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If the applicant requests dismissal of its application without prejudice, the Commission will dismiss that application without prejudice, unless it is an application for which the applicant submitted the winning bid in a competitive bidding process.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1)
(ii) The applicant must certify that no permanent discontinuance of service occurred during the license term. This safe harbor may be used by any Covered Site-based License.
(2)
(ii) The applicant must certify that no permanent discontinuance of service occurred during the license term. This safe harbor may be used by any Covered Geographic License.
(3)
(ii) The applicant must certify that no permanent discontinuance of operation occurred during the license term. This safe harbor may be used by any Covered Geographic License.
(4)
(ii) The applicant must certify that no permanent discontinuance of service occurred during the license term. This safe harbor may be used by any Covered Geographic License.
(f)
(1) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant (
(2) The date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
(3) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
(4) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(e)(3)(i) of this chapter; and
(5) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.
(g)
(h)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1)
(i) 220 MHz Service licensees must comply with § 90.1019 of this chapter.
(ii) Cellular Radiotelephone Service licensees must comply with § 22.948 of this chapter.
(iii) Multichannel Video & Distribution and Data Service licensees are only permitted to partition licensed geographic areas along county borders (Parishes in Louisiana or Territories in Alaska).
(2)
(i) 220 MHz Service licensees must comply with § 90.1019 of this chapter.
(ii) Cellular Radiotelephone Service licensees must comply with § 22.948 of this chapter.
(iii) VHF Public Coast (156-162 MHz) spectrum may only be disaggregated in frequency pairs, except that the ship and coast transmit frequencies comprising Channel 87 (see § 80.371(c) of this chapter) may be disaggregated separately.
(iv) Disaggregation is not permitted in the Multichannel Video & Distribution and Data Service 12.2-12.7 GHz band.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) * * *
(3)
47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
The revision reads as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336 and 554.
Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.
(d)
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) If any mutually exclusive application filed on the earliest filing date is an application for modification, a same-day filing group is used.
(b) Applicants who are approved in accordance with FCC Form 601 will be granted non-exclusive licenses for all non-reserved DSRCS frequencies (see § 90.377). Such licenses serve as a prerequisite of registering individual RSUs located within the licensed geographic area described in paragraph (a) of this section. Licensees must register each RSU in the Universal Licensing System (ULS) before operating such RSU. RSU registrations are subject, inter alia, to the requirements of § 1.923 of this chapter as applicable (antenna structure registration, environmental concerns, international coordination, and quiet zones). Additionally, RSUs at locations subject to NTIA coordination (see § 90.371(b)) may not begin operation until NTIA approval is received. Registrations are not effective until the Commission posts them on the ULS. It is the DSRCS licensee's responsibility to delete from the registration database any RSUs that have been discontinued.
(f) If a station is not placed in permanent operation, in accordance with the technical parameters of the station authorization, within one year, except as provided in § 90.629, its license cancels automatically. For purposes of this section, a base station is not considered to be placed in operation unless at least two associated mobile stations, or one control station and one mobile station, are also placed in operation.
(a) EA licenses in the 809-824/854-869 MHz band will be issued for a term not to exceed ten years.
Until January 1, 2023, all licensees seeking renewal of their authorizations at the end of their license term must file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of § 1.949 of this chapter. Licensees must demonstrate, in their application, that:
(a) They have provided “substantial” service during their past license term. “Substantial” service is defined in this rule as service that is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service that just might minimally warrant renewal; and
(b) They have substantially complied with applicable FCC rules, policies, and
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, and 307(e).
(a) Each 218-219 MHz Service licensee must make a showing of “substantial service” within ten years of the license grant. Until January 1, 2023, “substantial service” assessment will be made at renewal pursuant to the provisions and procedures contained in § 1.949 of this chapter.
(b) Until January 1, 2023, each 218-219 MHz Service licensee must file a report to be submitted to inform the Commission of the service status of its system. The report must be labeled as an exhibit to the renewal application. At minimum, the report must include:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
In addition to the provisions of § 1.953 of this chapter, a site-based license will be automatically terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee upon the voluntary removal or alteration of the facilities, so as to render the station not operational for a period of 30 days or more. A licensee is subject to this provision commencing on the date it is required to be providing service or operating under § 101.63. This provision is inapplicable to blanket authorizations to operate fixed stations at temporary locations pursuant to the provisions of § 101.31(a)(2). See § 101.305 for additional rules regarding temporary and permanent discontinuation of service.
(a) Each licensee must make a showing of “substantial service” within ten years of its license grant. “Substantial service” is a service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal during its past license term. Until January 1, 2023, “substantial service” assessment will be made at renewal pursuant to the provisions and procedures set forth in § 1.949 of this chapter.
(b) Until January 1, 2023, each licensee must, at a minimum file:
LMDS licensees must make a showing of “substantial service” in their license area within ten years of being licensed. “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal. Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
(c)
(b) As a construction requirement, MVDDS licensees must make a showing of substantial service at the end of five years into the license period and ten years into the license period. The substantial service requirement is defined as a service that is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal. At the end of five years into the license term and ten years into the license period, the Commission will consider factors such as:
(c) The renewal application of an MVDDS licensee is governed by § 1.949 of this chapter.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission addresses several petitions for reconsideration regarding recent decisions regarding wireless microphones. Specifically, the Commission makes technical revisions to the spurious emission limits that it had adopted for licensed wireless
Effective October 2, 2017, except for amendments to §§ 74.803(c) and (d), which contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the
The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 17, 2015.
Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-0688,
This is a summary of the Commission's Order on Reconsideration, GN Docket No. 14-166, ET Docket No. 14-165, GN Docket No. 12-268, FCC 17-95, adopted July 13, 2017, and released July 14, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
1.
2. Specifically, the Order on Reconsideration makes technical revisions to the spurious emission limits that the Commission had previously adopted for licensed wireless microphone operations in several frequency bands, and for unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, 600 MHz guard band, and duplex gap. With respect to licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap, and the 600 MHz service band (during the post-auction transition period), the Order on Reconsideration clarified the applicable output power measurements; clarified how certain antenna-related part 15 rules apply with respect to unlicensed wireless microphones; and revises and clarified the requirements for existing and legacy unlicensed wireless microphones during and after the post-auction transition period. In addition, with respect to licensed wireless microphone operations in other frequency bands, the Order on Reconsideration adopted revisions to the channelization plan for licensed wireless microphone operations in the 169-172 MHz band, generally affirms but provides clarifications regarding the 30-megahertz limit placed on licensed wireless microphone users' access to spectrum in the 1435-1525 MHz band, and clarified coordination requirements and operational limitations for licensed wireless microphone operations in the 941.5-944 MHz band.
3. The Order on Reconsideration also terminated three proceedings (WT Docket Nos. 06-166 and 08-167; ET Docket No. 10-24), begun in 2008 and 2010, that concerned various wireless microphone issues. All of the issues that remained in those proceedings have been subsumed in the proceedings addressed in the instant Order on Reconsideration.
4. First, the Commission addressed issues concerning the spurious emission limit that applies with respect both to licensed wireless microphones that operate pursuant to the Commission's part 74 LPAS rules in the TV bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap, as well as in several other frequency bands (
5.
6.
7. The Commission clarified that manufacturers may show compliance with the 50 mW EIRP limit for licensed wireless microphones operating in the VHF band by making either radiated or conducted measurements. The Commission did not intend to unnecessarily restrict use of this band for certain types of wireless microphone applications. Permitting different options for measuring output power raises no interference concerns, because either method can be used to determine the EIRP of a wireless microphone. Finally, because the Commission also clarified that for unlicensed wireless microphone operations in the TV bands (VHF and UHF) output power can be measured in either a conducted or radiated test configuration for comparison to the 50 mW power limit, as discussed immediately below, our output power requirements for wireless microphone operations in the VHF band, whether for licensed or unlicensed operations, will be uniformed.
8.
9. The Commission recognized that there is a difference in how the power limits are specified in the rules for licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones in the UHF TV band (conducted power vs. EIRP), but find that the flexibility that the Commission allowed to make either conducted or radiated measurements to meet the respective limits will allow wireless microphone manufacturers to use the same test methodology to demonstrate the compliance of both licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones. Either measurement approach can reliably establish compliance with the EIRP limits for wireless microphones.
10. Finally, while the Commission had not specifically required the use of the ETSI EN 300-422-1 output power measurement procedures, the Commission recognized that this standard allowed the option of either conducted or radiated power measurements for wireless microphones. Thus, the flexibility that the Commission allowed a wireless microphone manufacturer in choosing the method of power measurements is consistent with the method employed in other countries in the global marketplace. This flexibility also is consistent with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.10-2013 measurement procedure that the Commission uses for testing part 15 intentional radiators, as well as Office of Engineering and Technology published guidance for measurements relating to EIRP limits.
11.
12. The Commission denied requests to increase the 20 mW EIRP power level of wireless microphones that will operate in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap. The Commission chose this power level to avoid interference to licensed wireless services in the adjacent bands based on a detailed technical analysis described in the
13. The Commission noted that operating in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap is only one of several options for wireless microphone users. Users that may need more power for their various applications can use available spectrum in the TV bands where a maximum of 50 mW and 250 mW are permitted on an unlicensed and licensed basis, respectively. The Commission will allow manufacturers of licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones that operate in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap the option to demonstrate compliance with the 20 mW EIRP power limit through either conducted power or radiated measurements.
14.
15. Because the licensed and unlicensed wireless microphones that operate in the TV bands generally are the same devices (though higher power is permitted in the UHF band for licensed wireless microphones), the Commission expects that many unlicensed wireless microphones will also be certified under part 74, which does not require permanently attached antennas or unique antenna connectors. Also, many of the same types of entities that operate wireless microphones on a licensed basis under part 74 (
16. The Commission had not exempted unlicensed wireless microphones from the requirements of § 15.204 because these requirements are necessary to ensure that manufacturers provide information about the types of antennas and cables that may be used with a device to ensure compliance with the EIRP limits applicable to unlicensed wireless microphones (as discussed above). The Commission found that the current equipment authorization rules and procedures, described in more detail below, are not overly burdensome and provide sufficient flexibility to address Shure's concerns with respect to the certification of in-ear monitors.
17. As a general matter, applicants for certification must test equipment for compliance in the worst-case configuration as determined by the manufacturer,
18. The Commission recognized that, in practice, the length of the cables used for particular scenarios can differ. For instance, in cases where a cable that is significantly longer than the one with which the equipment was certified must be used, the higher cable loss could reduce the EIRP significantly below the maximum permitted by the rules. To the extent that part 15 certified equipment will be professionally installed, existing procedures allow the installer to configure the equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions to ensure that the equipment will comply with the part 15 rules in the configuration in which it will be used. The professional installer can thus compensate for factors such as higher cable loss to ensure that the equipment operates at up to, but no greater than, the power levels permitted by the rules. While an applicant for certification of equipment that will be professionally installed must submit certain additional information (
19.
20. First, the Commission clarified that unlicensed wireless microphone users can continue to operate equipment that had been certified under part 74, including equipment that can operate in portions of what becomes the 600 MHz service band following the auction, until the end of the 39-month post auction transition (provided other conditions for operation are met). After this transition period, however, unlicensed wireless microphone users are only authorized to operate wireless microphone equipment that has been certified under our part 15 rules, either as new equipment or as existing/legacy part 74-certified equipment that now complies with the part 15 rules (and thus would not be capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band, and instead would be designed to comply with the applicable technical rules, including authorized output power levels, for unlicensed operations in the TV bands or in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap). The Commission concluded that this approach will achieve an orderly transition following the auction that balances the needs of current unlicensed wireless microphone users, who otherwise could incur unduly burdensome costs in discarding equipment that can effectively be modified to comply with the applicable part 15 requirements, and the needs of the future 600 MHz service band licensees that will be providing wireless service in the coming years. The Commission noted that, during the 39-month post-auction transition period, unlicensed wireless microphone users must check the white spaces databases, prior to operating in the 600 MHz service band, to identify the channels available for use at their particular locations, which is a requirement designed to protect any 600 MHz service licensee that commences operations or conducts first field application (FFA) testing during this period.
21. The Commission also revised our requirements concerning the use by unlicensed wireless microphone users of existing/legacy equipment that was originally certified under part 74 and designed to operate on frequencies that include frequencies in the 600 MHz
22. If, however, the existing equipment that operates in the 600 MHz service band cannot be modified to comply with the part 15 rules, the unlicensed wireless microphone users will continue to be prohibited from operating that device after the end of the 39-month post-auction transition period. This requirement is consistent with our general part 15 requirement that unlicensed equipment must be constructed such that controls readily accessible to the user cannot cause the equipment to operate in violation of the technical rules. The Commission found that, after the end of the post-auction transition period, requiring unlicensed wireless microphone users to operate equipment that has been certified as compliant with the part 15 rules (
23. Wireless microphone manufacturers will have a critical role to play with respect to ensuring that unlicensed users can determine whether they can continue to use existing/legacy devices after the end of the post-auction transition period. Wireless microphone manufacturers have the requisite knowledge about their respective companies' wireless microphone devices. To meet their obligations, unlicensed users seeking to operate existing/legacy equipment will need to know whether their particular devices can be, and ultimately are, certified as part 15 compliant. Accordingly, the Commission expects that all wireless microphone manufacturers make the necessary information available about their existing/legacy models so that users can determine what is required of them in order to meet their respective obligations. This information should include information on their companies' particular devices, including (1) which devices will need to be modified, through hardware and/or software changes, to comply with part 15 requirements in order to be certified as part 15-compliant, and the process by which the manufacturers and the unlicensed users will achieve this; (2) which devices will not need to be modified to comply, but will be certified as compliant with the part 15 rules during the transition period; and (3) which devices will not comply, and cannot be certified as compliant with part 15 requirements (and accordingly cannot be used after the end of the post-auction transition period). Providing this information can be achieved in different ways, such as posting the necessary information on Web sites, ensuring that customer helplines can help inform users, or contacting known customers directly, depending on the situation.
24. Unlicensed wireless microphone users with existing/legacy part 74-certified equipment also must do their part by examining their various devices and taking any necessary actions to ensure that, after the end of the post-auction transition, they only operate such microphones that comply with part 15 requirements. They should be in contact with the manufacturer(s) of their wireless microphones to obtain information on their particular devices, the extent to which they can be made to comply with the part 15 requirements, and the steps they should take to modify any devices to bring them into compliance. Unlicensed wireless microphone users must ensure that any existing/legacy device that they plan to use complies with the part 15 requirements and has been so certified (either because it has been modified, where necessary, or otherwise has been certified as compliant with the part 15 requirements with respect to the particular frequencies on which it operates), and that they cease operating any other wireless microphone devices that do not comply with the part 15 requirements. The Commission noted that, as wireless microphone manufacturers develop new devices that comply with the part 15 rules for operations in the TV bands, the 600 MHz guard band, and the duplex gap, unlicensed wireless microphone users who need to replace particular existing/legacy wireless microphones will be able to obtain new part 15-compliant microphones before the end of the 39-month post-auction transition period to access the spectrum available for such operations.
25. Finally, the Commission reminded manufacturers, and entities that sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease wireless microphones, that marketing of any unlicensed or licensed wireless microphones that do not comply with the part 15 or revised part 74 rules (respectively) must cease no later than 18 months after release of the
26.
27. While the Commission agreed that professional theater, music, and performing arts organizations that operate unlicensed wireless microphones to deliver high quality sound for their audiences serve important needs, the Commission nonetheless declined here to grant Shure's petition insofar as it requests that the Commission to revise the new part 15 rules to permit unlicensed wireless microphone users to register their unlicensed operations for protection from other unlicensed operations in the TV bands. The Commission concluded that allowing these unlicensed users to obtain interference protection would be inconsistent with their unlicensed status. The Commission instead sought to address the concerns raised in the petition through Further Notice.
28. In the several actions that the Commission has taken related to the incentive auction and the reconfiguration of the TV bands, it has sought to balance different users' needs for access to spectrum. In the Commission's considerations regarding wireless microphones, it has recognized that following the incentive auction there will be fewer channels in the TV bands available for both wireless microphone and white space device operations. In expanding the eligibility for part 74 wireless microphone licenses in 2014 to include professional sound companies and owners and operators of large venues that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones in major events or productions, the Commission sought to address the needs of many unlicensed wireless microphone users that have similar needs to the other part 74 wireless microphone licensees to provide high quality audio services for large scale performances and events. And, in codifying the rules for unlicensed wireless microphone operations under part 15 in the
29. Although The Commission had denied the petition insofar as Shure requests that the Commission permit wireless microphone users that operate on an unlicensed basis to register for interference protection, the Commission understands that some entities that currently operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis may have needs identical or similar to the professional sound company/large venues that qualify for part 74 wireless microphone licenses for operation in the TV band spectrum. As the Commission concluded when expanding the part 74 license eligibility in 2014 for operation in the TV band, the routine use of 50 microphones is a “reasonable threshold” for identifying those entities that are more likely to require interference protection in order to ensure high-quality audio services for their productions. No party sought reconsideration of this particular threshold established in that proceeding, and the Commission cannot revisit that threshold absent additional notice. The Commission did, however, believe that some number of entities with identical or similar needs may be able to demonstrate to the Commission, on a case-by-case basis, that they may merit obtaining a part 74 license for operations on vacant TV channels at particular venues at specified times, such that they should be permitted to register available TV channels for that purpose. These entities may use fewer wireless microphones but otherwise have the same needs as licensees that operate on TV channels, or the wireless microphones may be needed for major events or productions at a location with very limited spectrum availability. Accordingly, the Commission has adopted a Further Notice in these proceedings in which the Commission proposed a path that will enable such qualifying entities to obtain a license under our part 74 LPAS rules. Considering that the phased broadcast station transitioning to the repacked TV bands begins next year, the Commission intends to act quickly to issue an order addressing the proposal set forth in the Further Notice.
30.
In revising the Commission's rules, the Commission promoted the goals set
31.
32. On reconsideration, the Commission affirmed the decision establishing a 30 megahertz limit on the amount of spectrum available for wireless microphone operations in the 1435-1525 MHz band at a particular location. The Commission did, however, provide clarifications regarding how this limitation applies with respect to different wireless microphone users and to particular areas of operations, which should help accommodate more wireless microphone users that operate in the same general area and have a need for access to spectrum in this band. In those few extraordinary instances in which a particular licensed wireless microphone user can demonstrate that access to more than 30 megahertz of this band for a specified event is merited, the STA process remains available for addressing those needs.
33. In the
34. Moreover, the record contains ample basis to support the balance that the Commission sought to achieve when establishing the 30-megahertz limitation for operations in this band—
35. The Commission also clarified how this general limitation will apply to different licensed wireless microphone users that may operate in the same general area or location. The Commission recognized, as noted by the petitioner and commenters above, that in some areas of the country the spectrum available for licensed wireless microphone operations may be quite constrained (
36. As discussed above, there may be extraordinary situations for which a licensed wireless microphone user may need access to more than 30 megahertz of spectrum in the band for a specific event at a particular location or area. For any such extraordinary event, the STA process remains available to meet these needs. In keeping with existing requirements for obtaining an STA, the wireless microphone licensee would need to demonstrate that all of the spectrum resources available to it for that event are insufficient to meet its needs. The Commission rejected Shure's request that we eliminate use of STAs in this band for either wireless microphone or video production operations. The Commission recognized that, for particular events, both professional wireless microphone users and professional video production services may seek access to spectrum in the 1435-1525 MHz band through STAs in the same general location or area. To the extent that these different entities may seek access to the 1435-1525 MHz band at the same location and time for scheduled events, the Commission expected these users to coordinate their audio and video operations.
37.
38.
39.
40. We have assessed the effects of various changes and clarifications to the
41.
42.
43. The Commission anticipates no adverse economic impact on small entities because, with one exception, the changes provide these entities benefits previously unavailable to them, as opposed to mandating new requirements on them. That exception involves the clarification that applicants for LPAS licenses to operate wireless microphones on frequencies in the 941.5-944 MHz band are required to have their proposed operations successfully coordinated with Federal users. However, the Commission believes that this requirement will impose only a
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Telecommunications.
Communications equipment.
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Communications equipment.
Business and industry.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2, 15, 74, 87, and 90 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions read as follows:
US84 In the bands 941.5-944 MHz and 1435-1525 MHz, low power auxiliary stations may be authorized on a secondary basis, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in 47 CFR part 74, subpart H.
US300 The frequencies 169.445, 169.505, 169.545, 169.575, 169.605, 169.995, 170.025, 170.055, 170.245, 170.305, 171.045, 171.075, 171.105, 171.845, 171.875, and 171.905 MHz are available for wireless microphone operations on a secondary basis to Federal and non-Federal operations. On center frequencies 169.575 MHz, 170.025 MHz, 171.075 MHz, and 171.875 MHz, the emission bandwidth shall not exceed 200 kHz. On the other center frequencies, the emission bandwidth shall not exceed 54 kHz.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
(i) As of December 26, 2017, wireless microphones for which an application for certification is filed must comply with the requirements of § 15.236. Manufacturing and marketing of wireless microphones that would not comply with the rules for operation in § 15.236 must cease no later than September 24, 2018. Only wireless microphones certified for operation under this part may be operated under this part as of July 13, 2020.
(k)
An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section. The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or electrical connector is prohibited. This requirement does not apply to carrier current devices or to devices operated under the provisions of §§ 15.211, 15.213, 15.217, 15.219, 15.221, or § 15.236. Further, this requirement does not apply to intentional radiators that must be professionally installed, such as perimeter protection systems and some field disturbance sensors, or to other intentional radiators which, in accordance with § 15.31(d), must be measured at the installation site. However, the installer shall be responsible for ensuring that the proper antenna is employed so that the limits in this part are not exceeded.
(a) * * *
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c) * * *
(1) Channels allocated and assigned for the broadcast television service.
(3) The 657-663 MHz segment of the 600 MHz duplex gap.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) The 614-616 MHz segment of the 600 MHz guard band.
(d) * * *
(2) In the 600 MHz guard band and the 600 MHz duplex gap: 20 mW EIRP.
(g) Emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in § 8.3 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 V1.4.2 (2011-08),
(a)
(j) * * *
(9) [Reserved]
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and 554.
(a)(1) Frequencies within the following bands may be assigned for use by low power auxiliary stations:
Frequency assignments in the 614.000-698.000 MHz band are subject to conditions established in proceedings pursuant to GN Docket No. 12-268. This band is being transitioned to the 600 MHz service band, the 600 MHz guard band, and the 600 MHz duplex gap during the post-incentive auction transition period (as defined in § 27.4 of this chapter), which began on April 13, 2017. Low power auxiliary stations must comply with the applicable conditions with respect to any assignment to operate on frequencies repurposed for the 600 MHz service band, the 600 MHz guard band, and the 600 MHz duplex gap, respectively. This rule will be further updated, pursuant to public notice or subsequent Commission action, to reflect additional changes that implement the determinations made in these proceedings.
(2) The 653.000-657.000 MHz segment of the 600 MHz duplex gap may be assigned for use by low power auxiliary service.
(c) In the 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, 6875.000-6900.000 MHz, and 7100.000-7125.000 MHz bands low power auxiliary station usage is secondary to other uses (
(d) In the 1435-1525 MHz band, low power auxiliary station (LPAS) authorizations are limited to operations at fixed locations, and only to the extent that applicable requirements have been met for the proposed operations at those specified locations.
(1) Each authorization is limited to specific events or situations for which there is a need to deploy large numbers of LPAS for specified time periods, and use of other available spectrum resources at that particular location is insufficient to meet the LPAS licensee's needs.
(2) The access to spectrum in the band must be coordinated with the frequency coordinator for aeronautical mobile telemetry, the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Committee (AFTRCC) prior to operations at the specified location and period of time, with AFTRCC indicating whether any specific frequencies in the band are unavailable for use. LPAS devices must complete authentication and location verification before operations begin, employ software-based controls or similar functionality to prevent devices in the band from operating except in the specific channels, locations, and time periods that have been coordinated, and be capable of being tuned to any frequency in the band.
(3) LPAS users may have access to no more than 30 megahertz of spectrum (one third of the 1435-1525 MHz band) for their operations at the specified locations. Different users in the same general area each can access up to 30 megahertz of spectrum for their respective operations. All licensees that have successfully coordinated with AFTRCC for access to the 1435-1525 MHz band for operations at their specified locations in the same general area must, to the extent necessary, coordinate their particular access to and use of spectrum with other licensees to minimize the potential for interference between and among the different operations.
The license for a low power auxiliary station authorizes the transmission of cues and orders to production personnel and participants in broadcast programs, motion pictures, and major events or productions and in the preparation therefor, the transmission of program material by means of a wireless microphone worn by a performer and other participants in a program, motion picture, or major event or production during rehearsal and during the actual broadcast, filming, recording, or event or production, or the transmission of comments, interviews, and reports from the scene of a remote broadcast. Low power auxiliary stations operating in the 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, 6875-6900 MHz, and 7100-7125 MHz bands may, in addition, transmit synchronizing signals and various control signals to portable or hand-carried TV cameras which employ low power radio signals in lieu of cable to deliver picture signals to the control point at the scene of a remote broadcast.
(d) Cable television operations, motion picture and television program producers, large venue owners or operators, and professional sound companies may be authorized to operate low power auxiliary stations in the bands allocated for TV broadcasting, the 653-657 MHz band, the 941.5-944 MHz
(i) As of January 13, 2018, applications for certification shall no longer be accepted for low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard band, or for low power auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless the operations are limited to the 653-657 MHz segment.
(j) As of October 13, 2018, no person shall manufacture, import, sell, lease, offer for sale or lease, or ship low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard bands, or low power auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless the operations are limited to the 653-657 MHz segment. This prohibition does not apply to devices manufactured solely for export.
(k) As of October 13, 2018, any person who manufacturers, sells, leases, or offer for sale or lease low power auxiliary stations or wireless video assist devices that are destined for non-U.S. markets and that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band or the 600 MHz guard bands, or low power auxiliary stations that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz duplex gap unless such operations are limited to the 653-657 MHz segment, shall include labeling and make clear in all sales, marketing, and packaging materials, including online materials, relating to such devices that the devices cannot be operated in the United States.
(l) Disclosure requirements for low power auxiliary stations and wireless video assist devices capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band. Any person who manufactures, sells, leases, or offers for sale or lease low power auxiliary stations or wireless video devices that are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band on or after July 13, 2017, is subject to the following disclosure requirements:
(d) * * *
(3) For the 26.1-26.480 MHz, 161.625-161.775 MHz, 450-451 MHz, and 455-456 MHz bands, the occupied bandwidth shall not be greater than that necessary for satisfactory transmission and, in any event, an emission appearing on any discrete frequency outside the authorized band shall be attenuated, at least, 43+10 log
(4)(i) For the 653-657 MHz, 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands, analog emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in section 8.3.1.2 of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; Part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement. Beyond one megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall comply with the limits specified in section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
(ii) For the 653-657 MHz, 941.5-944 MHz, 944-952 MHz, 952.850-956.250 MHz, 956.45-959.85 MHz, and 1435-1525 MHz bands, digital emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in section 8.3.2.2 (Figure 4) of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement. Beyond one megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall comply with the limits specified in section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
(iii) In the 6875-6900 MHz and 7100-7125 MHz bands, digital emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in section 8.3.2.2 (Figure 5) of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement. Beyond one megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall comply with the limits specified in section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08).
(e) * * *
(7) Analog emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in section 8.3.1.2 of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement. Digital emissions within the band from one megahertz below to one megahertz above the carrier frequency shall comply with the emission mask in section 8.3.2.2 (Figure 4) of the European Telecommunications Institute Standard ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08), Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio spectrum Matters (ERM); Wireless microphones in the 25 MHz to 3 GHz frequency range; part 1: Technical characteristics and methods of measurement. Beyond one megahertz below and above the carrier frequency, emissions shall comply with the limits specified in section 8.4 of ETSI EN 300 422-1 v1.4.2 (2011-08). The requirements of this paragraph (e)(7) shall not apply to applications for certification of equipment in these bands until nine months after release of the Commission's Channel Reassignment Public Notice, as defined in § 73.3700(a)(2) of this chapter.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 307(e), unless otherwise noted.
(d) * * *
(1) Frequencies in the 1435-1525 MHz and 2360-2395 MHz bands are assigned in the mobile service primarily for aeronautical telemetry and associated telecommand operations for flight testing of aircraft and missiles, or their major components. Until January 1, 2020, the 2345-2360 MHz band is also available to licensees holding a valid authorization on April 23, 2015 for these purposes on a secondary basis. Permissible uses of these bands include telemetry and associated telecommand operations associated with the launching and reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, as well as any incidental orbiting prior to reentry, of objects undergoing flight tests. In the 1435-1525 MHz band, the following frequencies are shared on a co-equal basis with flight telemetering mobile stations: 1444.5, 1453.5, 1501.5, 1515.5, and 1524.5 MHz. In the 2360-2395 MHz band, the following frequencies may be assigned for telemetry and associated telecommand operations of expendable and re-usable launch vehicles, whether or not such operations involve flight testing: 2364.5, 2370.5 and 2382.5 MHz. All other mobile telemetry uses of the 2360-2395 MHz band shall be on a non-interfering and unprotected basis to the above uses.
(4) Frequencies in the bands 1435-1525 MHz are also available for low power auxiliary station use on a secondary basis.
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
(b) The following frequencies are available for wireless microphone operations to eligibles in this part, subject to the provisions of this paragraph:
(1) On center frequencies 169.575 MHz, 170.025 MHz, 171.075 MHz, and 171.875 MHz, the emission bandwidth shall not exceed 200 kHz. On the other center frequencies listed in this paragraph (b), the emission bandwidth shall not exceed 54 kHz.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is temporarily closing the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna for vessels over 24 meters in overall length in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) through December 31, 2017, because the 2017 catch limit of 500 metric tons is expected to be reached. This action is necessary to prevent the fishery from exceeding the applicable catch limit established by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in Resolution C-17-01 (Conservation of Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean during 2017).
The rule is effective 12:00 a.m. local time September 8, 2017, through 11:59 p.m. local time December 31, 2017.
Taylor Debevec, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-4066.
The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission signed in 1949 (Convention). The Convention provides an international agreement to ensure the effective international conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the IATTC Convention Area. The IATTC Convention Area, as amended by the Antigua Convention, includes the waters of the EPO bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian.
Pelagic longline fishing in the EPO is managed, in part, under the Tuna Conventions Act as amended (Act), 16 U.S.C. 951-962. Under the Act, NMFS must publish regulations to carry out recommendations of the IATTC that have been approved by the Department of State (DOS). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Act appear at 50 CFR part 300, subpart C. These regulations implement IATTC recommendations for the conservation and management of highly migratory fish resources in the EPO.
In 2017, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-17-01, which establishes an annual catch limit of bigeye tuna for longline vessels over 24 meters. For calendar year 2017, the catch of bigeye tuna by longline gear in the IATTC Convention Area by fishing vessels of the United States that are over 24 meters in overall length is limited to 500 metric tons per year. With the approval of the DOS, NMFS implemented this catch limit by notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Act (82 FR 17382, April 11, 2017, and codified at 50 CFR 300.25).
NMFS, through monitoring the retained catches of bigeye tuna using logbook data submitted by vessel captains and other available information from the longline fisheries in the IATTC Convention Area, has determined that the 2017 catch limit is expected to be reached by September 8, 2017. In accordance with 50 CFR 300.25(a), this
During the closure, a U.S. fishing vessel over 24 meters in overall length may not be used to retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna captured by longline gear in the IATTC Convention Area, except as follows:
• Any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel on September 8, 2017, may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided all bigeye tuna are landed within 14 days after the effective date of this rule, that is, no later than September 22, 2017.
• The 14-day limit is waived in the case of a U.S. fishing vessel that has already declared to NMFS, pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a), that the current trip type is shallow-setting. However, the number of bigeye tuna retained on board, transshipped, or landed must not exceed the number on board the vessel on September 22, 2017, as recorded by the NMFS observer on board the vessel.
Other prohibitions during the closure include the following:
• Bigeye tuna caught by a United States vessel over 24 meters in overall length with longline gear in the IATTC Convention Area may not be transshipped to a fishing vessel unless that fishing vessel is operated in compliance with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
• A fishing vessel of the United States over 24 meters in overall length may not be used to fish in the Pacific Ocean using longline gear both inside and outside the Convention Area during the same fishing trip. The only exceptions are: a fishing trip during which the closure date was announced, and a trip for which a declaration has been made to NMFS, pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a), that the current trip is shallow-setting.
• If a fishing vessel of the United States over 24 meters in overall length is used to fish in the Pacific Ocean using longline gear outside the Convention Area and the vessel enters the Convention Area at any time after September 8, 2017, on the same fishing trip, the longline gear on the fishing vessel must be stowed in a manner so as not to be readily available for fishing. Specifically, the hooks, branch or dropper lines, and floats used to buoy the mainline must be stowed and not available for immediate use, and any power-operated mainline hauler on deck must be covered in such a manner that it is not readily available for use. This provision does not apply to trips in which vessels have made a declaration to NMFS, pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a), that the trip type is shallow-setting.
NMFS has determined there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action is based on the best available information and is necessary for the conservation and management of bigeye tuna. Compliance with the notice and comment requirement would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because NMFS would be unable to ensure that the 2017 bigeye tuna catch limit applicable to longline vessels over 24 meters is not exceeded. The annual catch limit is an important mechanism to ensure that the United States complies with its international obligations in preventing overfishing and managing the fishery at optimum yield. For the same reasons, NMFS has also determined there is good cause to waive the requirement for a 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is required by § 300.25(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 951
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for Atlantic migratory group cobia that are sold (commercial) and harvested from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Atlantic. NMFS projects that commercial landings of Atlantic migratory group cobia have reached the commercial quota. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for Atlantic migratory group cobia in the EEZ on September 5, 2017, and it will remain closed until the next fishing year that begins on January 1, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the resource of Atlantic migratory group cobia.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, September 5, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Separate migratory groups of cobia were established in Amendment 18 to the FMP (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011), and then revised in Amendment 20B to the FMP (80 FR 4216, January 27, 2015). The southern boundary for Atlantic migratory group cobia occurs at a line that extends due east of the Florida and Georgia state border at 30°42′45.6″ N. lat. The northern boundary for Atlantic migratory group cobia is the jurisdictional boundary between the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, as specified in 50 CFR 600.105(a).
Atlantic migratory group cobia are unique among federally managed species in the southeast region, because no commercial permit is required to harvest and sell them. The distinction between commercial and recreational sectors is not as clear as other federally managed species in the southeast region. For example, regulations at 50 CFR part 622 specify quotas, annual catch limits, and AMs for cobia that are sold and cobia that are not sold. However, for purposes of this temporary
The commercial quota for Atlantic migratory group cobia is 50,000 lb (22,680 kg), round or gutted weight, for the 2017 fishing year, from January 1 through December 31, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(d)(2).
The AMs for the commercial sector of Atlantic migratory group cobia, specified at 50 CFR 622.388(f)(1)(i), require that NMFS file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to prohibit the sale and purchase of cobia for the remainder of the fishing year if commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial quota specified in § 622.384(d)(2). The commercial AM is triggered for 2017, because NMFS projects that commercial landings of Atlantic migratory group cobia will reach the commercial quota on August 30, 2017. Accordingly, the commercial sector for Atlantic migratory group cobia is closed in the EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on September 5, 2017, and remains closed until it reopens at 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
During the commercial closure, the sale and purchase of Atlantic migratory group cobia is prohibited. Additionally, on January 24, 2017, NMFS closed the recreational sector for Atlantic migratory group cobia in the EEZ for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year (82 FR 8363, January 25, 2017). Therefore, the possession limit for recreational Atlantic migratory group cobia in the EEZ is zero for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. The prohibition on sale and purchase does not apply to Atlantic migratory group cobia that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, September 5, 2017, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic migratory group cobia and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.388(f)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action is based on the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries finds good cause to waive the requirements 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 prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs for Atlantic migratory group cobia have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial closure for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would be contrary to the public interest, because of the need to immediately implement the commercial closure to protect Atlantic migratory group cobia, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest that exceeds the commercial quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; emergency action; request for comments.
This emergency rule removes the 2017 southern windowpane flounder accountability measures for non-groundfish trawl vessels that were triggered as a result of a 2015 quota overage. The rule is necessary because new information indicates 2016 catch did not exceed the quota. This rule is intended to mitigate negative economic impacts to non-groundfish vessels, while maintaining conservation benefits for the southern windowpane flounder stock.
Effective September 1, 2017, through February 28. 2018. Comments must be submitted by October 2, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0105 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9195.
On August 1, 2017, we implemented accountability measures (AMs) in response to an overage of the 2015 southern windowpane flounder annual catch limit (ACL) (82 FR 35660). Due to data availability, AMs for windowpane flounder are typically implemented at the start of the second fishing year after an overage. The AMs require trawl vessels fishing in certain areas in southern New England to use selective trawl gear that limit flatfish catch. The southern windowpane AM areas apply to all groundfish trawl vessels. The AM areas also apply to non-groundfish trawl vessels fishing with a codend mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater, which includes vessels that target summer
In 2015, the New England Fishery Management Council developed Framework Adjustment 52 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to reduce the economic impacts of the windowpane flounder AMs for the groundfish fishery. At the time, the AMs were triggered only for the groundfish fishery. The Council intentionally limited the scope of Framework 52 to the groundfish fishery to ensure the action could be completed, and final measures implemented, in time for the start of the 2015 fishing year. Framework 52 included a provision that gave the Regional Administrator authority to remove the windowpane flounder AM in-season if catch is below the ACL in the year immediately following the overage. Thus, although we implemented an AM in 2017 due to an overage in 2015, we can remove the AM in September if catch did not exceed the ACL in 2016, the intervening year.
Southern windowpane flounder catch data for 2016 recently became available showing total 2016 catch was 82 percent of the total ACL, and catch by non-groundfish vessels was well below the sub-ACL for this fishery component. Following our announcement of the 2015 windowpane flounder overage and resulting 2017 AMs, the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils both requested that we consider all remediation methods available to remove or modify the southern windowpane flounder AMs for 2017. The Councils highlighted the economic impacts of the AMs, as well as the status of the stock, which is rebuilt with overfishing not occurring. Additionally, possession of southern windowpane flounder has been prohibited for all fisheries since 2010. Given all of these factors, the Councils argued that the AMs are unnecessary and punitive. As a result, consistent with existing regulatory authority, we removed the AMs for the groundfish fishery effective September 1, 2017 (82 FR 35676; August 1, 2017). However, the regulatory authority to remove the southern windowpane flounder AM areas during the fishing year is limited to the groundfish fishery only, and the Regional Administrator currently is not authorized to remove the AM areas for non-groundfish trawl vessels. Without this emergency action, the AMs for non-groundfish vessels would remain in place for the entire 2017 fishing year, through April 30, 2018.
The New England Council, with support from the Mid-Atlantic Council, intends to address the AMs for non-groundfish trawl vessels in Framework 57 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, which is scheduled to be implemented for the 2018 fishing year. However, neither Council is able to take action in time to address this issue for the 2017 fishing year in order to minimize the adverse economic impact of the 2017 AMs on the non-groundfish fishery.
Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(c)) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to implement emergency regulations to address fishery emergencies. NMFS policy guidelines for the use of emergency rules define criteria for determining whether an emergency exists under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (62 FR 44421; August 21, 1997). These criteria limit emergency management actions to “recent, unforeseen events or recently discovered circumstances” that present serious management problems in the fishery when emergency regulations would bring immediate benefits that outweigh the value of advance notice and public comment.
Maintaining the AMs on the non-groundfish fishery for the full fishing year would have immediate serious economic impacts without further contributing to the conservation goals of the AMs. Additionally, maintaining the AMs on the non-groundfish fishery presents a fairness and equity issue that was not previously apparent. The 2017 fishing year is the first time that we have been required to implement these AMs for both the groundfish and non-groundfish fisheries. Data supporting this removal only recently became available, and it is the first time that these AMs can be removed from the groundfish fishery but not the non-groundfish fishery. Before this, neither we, nor the Council, could have reasonably considered or foreseen the specific circumstance presented by the current situation, that is, the possibility of the AMs being removed for groundfish vessels but remaining in place for the non-groundfish trawl vessels, despite catch being below the ACL.
AMs are intended to correct operational issues that cause overages and mitigate biological consequences of overages. The fishery's 2016 catch results demonstrate that the fishery appears to have corrected the operational issues that caused the 2015 overage. The windowpane flounder AMs act as a disincentive to exceed an ACL and, if an overage does occur, the possibility of removing that AM during a fishing year is intended to provide an additional incentive to change fishing behavior in the year following an overage. Consistent with this incentive, the fishery's 2016 catch was below the ACL following the 2015 overage despite there being no AM areas in effect in 2016. In addition to the AM measures operating as expected, there were changes in the groundfish and non-groundfish fisheries that contributed to limiting 2016 catch below both the non-groundfish fishery sub-ACL and the total ACL. Catch limits for several Southern New England groundfish stocks and summer flounder were reduced in 2016 relative to 2015, which limited overall fishing effort targeting flatfish stocks in 2016. These catch limit reductions are also in place for the 2017 fishing year, so we expect southern windowpane flounder catch in 2017 to be similar to catch in 2016.
Current stock status and our environmental analyses confirm that the 2015 overage has not resulted in negative biological consequences for southern windowpane flounder. The 2015 assessment update for southern windowpane flounder stock found that the stock is not overfished and that overfishing is not occurring. The stock was declared rebuilt in 2012, and overfishing has not occurred on this stock since 2006. NMFS trawl survey indices indicate that stock size has been relatively stable, has been increasing since hitting a time series low in the mid-1990s, and has increased marginally between 2014 and 2016. This stock history shows that maintaining the AMs is not expected to provide substantial additional mitigation of potential adverse biological impacts.
The analysis in recent Northeast Multispecies FMP actions also shows that removing the AMs for non-groundfish vessels should not result in negative impacts for the southern windowpane flounder stock. Framework 52 addressed the biological impacts of removing the AMs in terms of the overall southern windowpane flounder ACL, and does not differentiate between sub-ACLs for different fisheries, or catch by different gear types. Further,
Acting quickly to remove the AMs on the summer flounder is particularly important because a greater portion of the summer flounder fishery catch occurs in the summer months through September. Yet, no additional AM goal is accomplished through maintaining the AMs on that fishery after August 31. We have determined that removing the AMs as soon as practicable after August 31 this fishing year through an emergency action is necessary and outweighs the benefits of using the advance notice and comment procedures. In developing any new measures through Framework 57, the Council process will provide ample opportunity for notice and comment and full participation. Consequently, the opportunity for notice and comment is only delayed. In addition, avoiding the serious economic loss for a reasonably unforeseen event, while acting consistently with the conservation and management goals of the AMs, outweighs the benefit of advance notice and comment.
This emergency action extends to non-groundfish vessels the existing provision that already allows us to remove the southern windowpane flounder AM in September for groundfish vessels, if we determine that catch remained below the ACL in the year immediately following an overage. Effective September 1, 2017, this action temporarily removes (for 180 days) the southern windowpane flounder AMs for non-groundfish trawl vessels fishing with a codend mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater. Non-groundfish trawl vessels will be able to fish inside of the large southern windowpane flounder AM areas (Figure 1) without selective gear, which increases fishing opportunities to target other flatfish species for which they hold a permit and for which quota is available.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act limits NMFS' emergency action authority to an initial period of 180 days, with a potential extension up to an additional 186 days, if warranted. The public has an opportunity to comment on the initial emergency action (see
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this emergency rule is consistent with the criteria and justifications for use of emergency measures in section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and other applicable law.
Section 553 of the APA establishes procedural requirements applicable to rulemaking by Federal agencies. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure public access to the Federal rulemaking process and to give the public adequate notice and opportunity for comment. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Additionally, this rule is excepted from the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because it relieves a restriction by removing the southern windowpane flounder AM areas for non-groundfish trawl vessels.
This is the first year the AMs have been triggered for both groundfish and non-groundfish trawl vessels, and it is also the first time we are removing the AMs for groundfish vessels under
Maintaining the AMs on the non-groundfish fishery for the full fishing year would have immediate serious economic impacts without contributing further to the conservation goals of the AMs. If the AM areas are in place for the full fishing year, they are estimated to result in $2 million in lost revenue in catch of yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, summer flounder, and scup. The AM areas do not prohibit all fishing with bottom-tending trawls, but require the use of trawl gear designed to minimize flatfish catch, which eliminates access to target species that vessels cannot recoup even if fishing in other areas. Removing the AMs this fishing year through an emergency action mitigates serious economic harm to the non-groundfish fishery while the Council develops permanent FMP measures.
For all of the reasons outlined above, NMFS finds it impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior opportunity to comment on these emergency measures. Because this rule alleviates a restriction, which if continued would otherwise have serious and unnecessary economic harm on non-groundfish trawl vessels, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment and/or a 30-day delayed effectiveness would prevent the positive benefits that this rule is intended to provide, particularly because the fisheries most affected by the AM areas are most active in the summer months through September.
This action is being taken pursuant to the emergency provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is exempt from OMB review.
This emergency rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS is adjusting the 2017 C seasonal apportionments of the total allowable catch (TAC) for pollock in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) by re-apportioning unharvested pollock TAC in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA. This action is necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2017 pollock TAC, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 29, 2017, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (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 annual pollock TACs in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA are apportioned among four seasons, in accordance with § 679.23(d)(2). Regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) allow the underharvest of a seasonal apportionment to be added to subsequent seasonal apportionments, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for a given statistical area. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the C season apportionment of pollock in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA to
The C seasonal apportionment of the 2017 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 19,569 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032; February 27, 2017). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby increases the C season apportionment for Statistical Area 610 by 3,914 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 610 and 620 in the B season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the C seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 610. Therefore, the revised C seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is 23,483 mt (19,569 mt plus 3,914 mt).
The C seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 12,341 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the C seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 620 by 2,468 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 620 in the B season. This increase is not greater than 20 percent of the C seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised C seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 14,809 mt (12,341 mt plus 2,468 mt).
The C seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 15,886 mt as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the C seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 630 by 3,177 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 620 and 630 in the B season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the C seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 630. Therefore, the revised C seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 19,063 mt (15,886 mt plus 3,177 mt).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would provide opportunity to harvest increased pollock seasonal apportionments. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 25, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of the incidental catch allowance for Pacific ocean perch in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2017 total allowable catch of Pacific ocean perch apportioned to the incidental catch allowance in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 29, 2017, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch apportioned to the incidental catch allowance in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,000 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2017 TAC of Pacific ocean perch apportioned to the incidental catch allowance in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that catches of the incidental catch allowance for Pacific ocean perch in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA be treated as prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(b). This closure does not apply to fishing by vessels participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program for the Central GOA.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) proposes to revise its regulations to provide that DOE will issue an export authorization upon receipt of any complete application that seeks to export natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), to countries with which the United States has not entered into a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries), provided that the application satisfies the following two criteria: The application proposes to export natural gas in a volume up to and including 0.14 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day (Bcf/d), and DOE's approval of the application does not require an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In proposing this revision, DOE is interpreting the phrase “public interest” set forth in the Natural Gas Act (NGA). DOE proposes that applications that satisfy these criteria are requesting authorization for “small-scale natural gas exports” and, as such, the exports are deemed to be consistent with the public interest under the NGA. DOE's regulations regarding notice of applications and procedures conducted on applications would no longer apply to applications that satisfy these criteria. The proposed regulation is intended to expedite DOE's processing of these applications, thereby reducing administrative burdens for the small-scale natural gas export market.
Public comment on this proposed rule will be accepted until October 16, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1901-AB43 and FE Docket No. 17-86-R. Use any of the following methods, although the eRulemaking Portal is preferred:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Due to potential delays in the delivery of postal mail, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.
Amy Sweeney, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-2627; or Cassandra Bernstein or Ronald (R.J.) Colwell, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6D-033, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-9793 or (202) 586-8499.
The Department of Energy is responsible for authorizing exports of natural gas to foreign nations pursuant to section 3 of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b. For applications to export natural gas to non-FTA countries under NGA section 3(a), 15 U.S.C. 717b(a),
Typically, the federal agency responsible for permitting the export facility serves as the lead agency in the NEPA review process, and DOE serves as a cooperating agency within the meaning of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations, 40 CFR 1501.4, 1501.5. For LNG terminals located onshore or in state waters, the agency responsible for permitting the export facilities is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to authority delegated by DOE under section 3(e) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717b(e). For LNG terminals located offshore beyond state waters, the responsible agency is the Maritime Administration (MARAD) within the Department of Transportation pursuant to section 3(9) of the Deepwater Ports Act, as amended by section 312 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-213).
DOE's environmental review process under NEPA usually results in the preparation or adoption of an EIS or EA describing the potential environmental impacts associated with the application. In some cases, DOE may determine that an application is eligible for a categorical exclusion from the preparation or adoption of an EIS or EA pursuant to DOE's regulations implementing NEPA, 10 CFR 1021.410, appendices A & B. For example, categorical exclusion B5.7 of DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.7) applies to natural gas import or export activities requiring minor operational changes to existing projects, but no new construction.
Although NGA section 3(a) establishes a broad public interest standard and a presumption favoring export authorizations, the statute does not define “public interest” or identify criteria that must be considered in evaluating the public interest. In prior decisions, DOE has identified a range of factors that it evaluates when reviewing an application for export authorization. These factors include economic impacts, international impacts, security of natural gas supply, and environmental impacts, among others. To conduct this review, DOE looks to record evidence developed in the application proceeding.
DOE's prior decisions have also looked to certain principles established in its 1984 Policy Guidelines.
The market, not government, should determine the price and other contract terms of imported [or exported] natural gas. . . . The federal government's primary responsibility in authorizing imports [or exports] will be to evaluate the need for the gas and whether the import [or export] arrangement will provide the gas on a competitively priced basis for the duration of the contract while minimizing regulatory impediments to a freely operating market.
In Order No. 1473, DOE stated that it was further guided by DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111. That delegation order, which authorized the Administrator of the Economic Regulatory Administration to exercise the agency's review authority under NGA section 3, directed the Administrator to regulate exports “based on a consideration of the domestic need for the gas to be exported and such other matters as the Administrator finds in the circumstances of a particular case to be appropriate.”
Although DOE Delegation Order No. 0204-111 is no longer in effect, DOE's review of export applications has continued to focus on: (i) The domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, (ii) whether the proposed exports pose a threat to the security of domestic natural gas supplies, (iii) whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting market competition, and (iv) any other factors bearing on the public interest, as determined by DOE.
Additionally, since 2011, DOE has commissioned several studies to evaluate the reasonably foreseeable economic and environmental impacts of natural gas exports, and to respond to concerns about exports submitted to DOE in various proceedings. These studies include:
The 2012 EIA Study generally found that natural gas exports will lead to higher domestic natural gas prices, increased domestic natural gas production, reduced domestic natural gas consumption, and increased natural gas imports from Canada via pipeline. Among the key findings of the NERA Study (the second part of the 2012 LNG Export Study), NERA projected that the United States would gain net economic benefits from allowing LNG exports. For every market scenario examined, the NERA Study determined that economic benefits increased as the level of natural gas exports increased.
The 2014 EIA LNG Export Study found that natural gas exports will generally lead to relatively modest domestic natural gas price increases, increased domestic natural gas production, reduced domestic natural gas consumption, and higher levels of economic output (as measured by real gross domestic product).
The 2015 LNG Export Study considered export volumes ranging from 12 to 20 Bcf/d of natural gas, as well as a high resource recovery case examining export volumes up to 28 Bcf/d of natural gas. The analysis covered the 2015 to 2040 time period. The 2015 Study made the following key findings:
• Rising natural gas exports are associated with a net increase in domestic natural gas production;
• As exports increase, the spread between U.S. domestic prices and international benchmarks narrows;
• The overall macroeconomic impacts of higher natural gas exports are marginally positive—a result that is robust to alternative assumptions for the U.S. natural gas market;
• An increase in U.S. natural gas exports will generate small declines in output at the margin for some energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries; and
• Negative impacts in energy-intensive sectors are offset by positive impacts elsewhere.
The Addendum evaluated environmental impacts including water resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, induced seismicity, and land use impacts. The DOE Addendum concluded that DOE cannot meaningfully estimate where, when, or by what particular method additional natural gas would be produced in response to non-FTA export demand.
Finally, although not directly relevant to this proposed rule,
To date, DOE has issued 28 final export authorizations to non-FTA countries, bringing the cumulative total of approved non-FTA exports of LNG and compressed natural gas (CNG) to 21.33 Bcf/d of natural gas, or 7.79 trillion cubic feet per year.
Of these 28 non-FTA authorizations, seven authorize exports in volumes below 0.14 Bcf/d of natural gas—the volume limitation set forth in the criteria for this proposed rulemaking. These seven authorizations include: Carib Energy (USA) LLC (0.04 Bcf/d), American Marketing LLC (0.008 Bcf/d), Emera CNG, LLC (0.008 Bcf/d), Floridian Natural Gas Storage Company, LLC (0.04 Bcf/d), Air Flow North American Corp. (0.002 Bcf/d), Flint Hills Resources, LP (0.01 Bcf/d), and Carib Energy (USA), LLC (0.004).
In each of the 28 non-FTA export authorizations issued to date, and on the basis of the record evidence presented in those proceedings, DOE has reached the following conclusions as part of its public interest determination for each application:
• Substantial domestic natural gas supplies exist to meet domestic natural gas demand and increased natural gas exports;
• While increased natural gas exports will result in higher U.S. natural gas prices, these price changes remain in a relatively narrow range across the scenarios studied and the domestic natural gas market is capable of accommodating increased natural gas exports without significant negative price or other economic impacts;
• Even with these estimated price increases, increased natural gas exports are likely to generate net economic benefits for the United States;
• Increased natural gas exports stimulate local, regional, and national economies through direct and indirect job creation, increased economic activity, and tax revenues; and
• Increased natural gas exports increase diversity of supply in the global natural gas market, in turn benefiting international trade and relations as well as global energy security.
The emerging small-scale export market involves exports of small volumes of natural gas from the United States to countries primarily in, but not limited to, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Many of these countries do not generate enough natural gas demand to support the economies of scale required to justify large volumes of LNG imports from large-scale LNG terminals via conventional LNG tankers. The small-scale natural gas export market has developed as a solution to the practical and economic constraints limiting natural gas exports to these countries.
DOE is proposing to revise its regulations to expedite the application and approval process for small-scale exports of natural gas. Specifically, the proposed rule provides that DOE, upon receipt of any complete application to export natural gas (including LNG) to non-FTA countries, will grant the application provided that it satisfies the following two criteria: (1) The application proposes to export natural gas in a volume up to and including
For each small-scale application submitted to DOE, DOE will first determine if the application is complete under DOE's regulations. If the application is complete, DOE will post the application on DOE's Web site, consistent with DOE practice. Next, DOE will determine if the application meets the criteria for a small-scale natural gas export. If the application meets the criteria, DOE will issue a non-FTA authorization granting the application on an expedited basis, without providing notice of application and other procedures typically required for non-FTA export applications under DOE's regulations, 10 CFR 590.205 and 10 CFR part 590, subpart C (10 CFR 590.303-10 CFR 590.317). All small-scale natural gas export authorizations issued pursuant to these regulations will be posted on DOE's Web site, and will contain appropriate terms and conditions consistent with DOE's regulations and practice.
DOE notes that entities involved in this emerging market typically define “small-scale” natural gas exports as exports of 1.0 million metric tons per annum (mtpa) or lower.
As the second criterion for this proposed rule, DOE must determine that its approval of the application does not require an EIS or an EA under NEPA, because it qualifies for a categorical exclusion. For example, pursuant to DOE's categorical exclusion B5.7, a small-scale natural gas export that involves only existing facilities and/or minor operational changes is an action that does not involve new construction.
Any application that satisfies these two criteria would qualify as a “small-scale natural gas export” as that term is defined under this proposed rule, and would be deemed to be consistent with the public interest under NGA section 3(a). As noted above, DOE's regulations regarding notice of applications, 10 CFR 590.205, and procedures applicable to application proceedings, 10 CFR 590 subpart C (10 CFR 590.301 to 10 CFR 590.317), would not apply to applications that satisfy these criteria. Rather, this proposed rule, and the 45-day comment period for this proposed rule, would constitute the notice and opportunity for hearing on all prospective small-scale natural gas export applications.
This proposed rule is limited to qualifying small-scale exports of natural gas. If adopted, this proposed rule would not affect either existing DOE authorizations or DOE's evaluation of any non-FTA application that does not meet the criteria for small-scale natural gas exports. In expediting the application and approval process for these exports, DOE recognizes the unique characteristics and minimal adverse impacts of the small-scale natural gas market emerging primarily in the United States, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. As discussed below, the proposed rule is in accordance with section 3 of the NGA, DOE's interpretation of the public interest standard set forth in NGA section 3(a), and DOE's long-standing policy of minimizing federal control and involvement in energy markets and promoting a balanced and mixed energy resource system.
Under section 3(a) of the NGA, the Secretary of Energy is required to issue an order upon application unless, after opportunity for hearing, DOE finds that the proposed export “will not be consistent with the public interest.”
In determining that small-scale natural gas exports are consistent with the public interest, DOE has considered the economic studies and the Addendum discussed in Section I.B, as well as the public comments received on these studies. DOE has also considered the 28 final non-FTA export authorizations issued to date, including the seven non-FTA authorizations approving exports at volumes below 0.14 Bcf/d of natural gas (identified in section I.C), as well as the most recent authoritative projections for natural gas supply, demand, and prices set forth in the
In reaching this conclusion, DOE has considered the economic impacts of higher natural gas prices and potential increases in natural gas price volatility and, as noted earlier, has reviewed the economic impacts of natural gas exports. Recent advancements in natural
The 2015 Study considered export volumes ranging from 12 to 20 Bcf/d of natural gas, as well as a high resource recovery case examining export volumes up to 28 Bcf/d of natural gas. By comparison, to date DOE has issued final non-FTA authorizations in a cumulative volume of exports totaling 21.33 Bcf/d of natural gas—well below the 28 Bcf/d case considered in the 2015 Study. As DOE has explained in recent orders,
DOE finds that small-scale natural gas exports meeting the criteria set forth in this proposed rulemaking will not interfere with the domestic need for natural gas. Likewise, small-scale exports will not have a detectable impact on domestic natural gas prices, and will not pose a risk to the security of domestic natural gas supplies. While small-scale natural gas exports are unlikely to generate negative economic or supply impacts in the United States, these exports are expected to have positive impacts. Specifically, small-scale natural gas exports are expected to generate positive economic benefits in the United States through direct and indirect job creation, increased economic activity, tax revenues, and improved U.S. balance of trade.
To countries that do not otherwise have access to natural gas, small-scale natural gas exports represent an important change in their ability to generate electricity. Small-scale exports also will enable electric generation facilities in the importing countries to switch from heavy fuel oil and diesel to natural gas, providing positive environmental benefits through the reduction of emissions at fuel oil and diesel burning electric generators. The availability of a reliable supply of natural gas to customers outside of the United States who are currently burning diesel or fuel oil for power generation may encourage conversion to natural gas-based power generation equipment. Companies in the United States would be well positioned to provide and support this type of power generation equipment, thus providing secondary economic benefits from the small-scale exports.
Additionally, small-scale natural gas exports will enable importing countries to diversify their fuel supplies, while contributing to greater overall transparency, efficiency, and liquidity of natural gas markets outside the United States. To the extent small-scale natural gas exports will diversify global natural gas supplies, and increase the volumes of natural gas available globally, small-scale natural exports will improve energy security for many U.S. allies and trading partners. As such, the proposed rule will advance the public interest by fostering international relations, trade, and security.
DOE has consistently subscribed to the principles set forth in the 1984 Policy Guidelines that the market, not the government, is the most efficient means of allocating natural gas supplies. The United States has an abundant supply of affordable natural gas that studies have shown will significantly exceed domestic demand. Meanwhile, foreign demand for natural gas imports from the United States has increased as many countries, such as those in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, seek to import cleaner sources of energy.
The conventional, large-scale natural gas import/export market is extremely capital-intensive. Companies must achieve sufficient economies of scale to justify their multi-billion dollar investments in large-scale LNG terminals and in large-volume LNG tanker fleets. However, many of the countries in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America simply do not generate enough demand to import the large volumes of natural gas supplied by the large-scale natural gas import/export market. Given these diseconomies of scale, a gap has emerged in the regional natural gas import/export market. Small-scale natural gas exports represent a market-driven response to fill this gap. In contrast to large-scale natural gas exports, small-scale natural gas exports typically originate from existing facilities in the United States, are transported shorter distances, and rely on a variety of transportation modes (such as ISO containers loaded onto container ships and barges). DOE believes that facilitating small-scale natural gas exports will allow for greater diversity and competition in the natural gas market.
This regulatory action has been determined to not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011.) EO 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE concludes that this proposed rule is consistent with these principles. Specifically, this proposed rule provides that DOE will issue an export authorization upon receipt of any complete application that seeks to export natural gas, including LNG, to non-FTA countries, provided that the
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” That Order stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. The Order stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. This proposed rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The Order required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, EO 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
Finally, on March 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13783, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Among other things, EO 13783 requires the heads of agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. Such review does not include agency actions that are mandated by law, necessary for the public interest, and consistent with the policy set forth elsewhere in that order.
Executive Order 13783 defined burden for purposes of the review of existing regulations to mean to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.
DOE concludes that this proposed rule is consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. Specifically, this proposed rule would require DOE to issue an export authorization upon receipt of any complete application that seeks to export natural gas, including LNG, to non-FTA countries, provided that the application satisfies the following two criteria: (1) The application proposes to export natural gas in a volume up to and including 0.14 Bcf/d, and (2) DOE's approval of the application does not require an EIS or an EA under NEPA. DOE proposes that applications that satisfy these criteria are requesting authorization for “small-scale natural gas exports” and, as such, the exports are deemed to be consistent with the public interest under NGA section 3(a). DOE's regulations regarding notice of applications and procedures conducted on applications would no longer apply to applications that satisfy these criteria. The proposed regulation would expedite DOE's processing of these applications, thereby reducing administrative burdens for the small-scale natural gas export market.
DOE has determined that promulgation of these regulations fall into a class of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment as set forth under DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. As discussed in the preamble, this proposed rule would require DOE to issue an export authorization upon receipt of any complete application that seeks to export natural gas, including LNG, to non-FTA countries, provided that the application satisfies the following two criteria: (1) The application proposes to export natural gas in a volume up to and including 0.14 Bcf/d, and (2) DOE's approval of the application does not require an EIS or an EA under NEPA. DOE's regulations regarding notice of applications and procedures conducted on applications would no longer apply to applications that satisfy these criteria.
To date, DOE has received—and granted—seven applications to export LNG in volumes below 0.14 Bcf/d of natural gas to non-FTA countries (identified in section I.C). Of these seven applicants, two qualify as small businesses under the Small Business Administration's size standards under NAICS 221210, Natural Gas
Therefore, DOE certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE did not prepare an IRFA for this rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The proposed rule does not change any requirements subject to review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on tribal, state, and local governments. Subsection 101(5) of title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to include any regulation that would impose upon tribal, state, or local governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on tribal, state, and local governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result in costs to tribal, state, or local governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). 2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b). Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input from elected officers of tribal, state, and local governments. 2 U.S.C. 1534.
This proposed rule would streamline procedures for small-scale natural gas exports. DOE has determined that the proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by tribal, state, and local governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule that may affect family well-being. The proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that have Federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not preempt state law and 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency
OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. For the reasons discussed in section II.C, this regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and therefore is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 590, chapter II of title 10, subchapter G, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Secs. 301(b), 402(f), and 644, Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 578, 585, and 599 (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f), and 7254), Sec. 3, Act of June 21, 1938, c. 556, 52 Stat. 822 (15 U.S.C. 717b); E.O. 12009 (42 FR 46267, September 15, 1977); DOE Delegation Order Nos. 0204-111 and 0204-127 (49 FR 6684, February 22, 1984; 54 FR 11437, March 20, 1989).
The revisions to read as follows:
(p)
(1) The application proposes to export natural gas in a volume up to and including 0.14 billion cubic feet per day, and
(2) DOE's approval of the application does not require an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321
(a)
(b)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of the failure of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent in-flight shutdown of the engine. This proposed AD would require inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
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 General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; 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 learned of the failure of an HPT stage 1 blade retainer that resulted in an in-flight shutdown of the engine. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, dated August 16, 2017. The SB describes procedures for piece-part inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 11 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This 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 engines, propellers, and appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B70C/P2, and -1B74/75/P2 turbofan engines, with a high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer, part number (P/N) 2445M91P01 or 2383M99P02, with a serial number listed in Planning Information, paragraph 1.A., of GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0326 R02, dated August 16, 2017.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of the failure of the high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 blade retainer and subsequent in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time inspection of the HPT stage 1 blade retainer. Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1), in GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, dated August 16, 2017, to do the inspection.
(2) If any cracks are found in the HPT stage 1 blade retainer, or the retainer does not meet the dimensional criteria found in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1), in GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, dated August 16, 2017, replace with a part eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation or for replacing the fan or propulsor, without subsequent maintenance, does not constitute an engine shop visit.
(1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 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 ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. You may email your request 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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0326 R02, dated August 16, 2017, can be obtained from GE using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; fax: 513-552-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a rule in the
The proposed rule sought to clarify the eligibility requirements for businesses to obtain “verified” status, added and revised definitions, reordered requirements, redefined the definition of “control,” and provided explanatory information on VA's examination and review processes and procedures. The proposed rule additionally sought to implement new changes to community property restrictions, unconditional ownership, and day-to-day requirements and full-time requirements. An exception for majority, supermajority, unanimous, and other voting provisions for extraordinary business decisions were also proposed.
Comments to the proposed rule were to be provided to the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization on or before January 5, 2016. Due to the nature of the adverse comments received, VA has determined not to pursue implementation of the rule as originally proposed. Accordingly, this document withdraws the proposed rule.
The proposed rule published on November 6, 2015, 80 FR 68795 is withdrawn as of September 1, 2017.
Tom Leney, Executive Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420; (202) 462-4300. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In the proposed rule published in the
VA received 203 comments from 96 commenters. 134 of these comments were adverse to the proposed rule and VA's verification program in general. Of the 134 adverse comments, several were
SBA, Office of Advocacy, objected to the proposed rule on various grounds including that it fails to provide an adequate basis in its Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) certification concerning the proposed rule's impact on small business entities. VA's RFA language provided that “VA estimates the cost to an individual business to be less than $100.00 for 70-75 percent of the businesses seeking verification, and the average cost to the entire population of veterans seeking to become verified is less than $325.00 on average.” In its comment, SBA stated that “[o]ne of the most important provisions with the RFA requires that the promulgating agency give the public some idea of the number of small entities that any proposed rule will impact. VA's proposed certification does not provide any indication of the number of small businesses that may be impacted by the proposed change.” After considering this comment, VA procured a survey to better demonstrate that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
SBA also objected to the proposed rule to the extent that it failed to provide statutory or other legal authority following each cited substantive provision. SBA, in its comment, stated that the proposed rule does not comply with 38 U.S.C. 501 in that the proposed rule does not “contain citations to the particular section or sections of statutory law or other legal authority upon which such issuance is based.” After considering the SBA's comment, VA seeks to withdraw the proposed rule and to republish at a later date to ensure that each substantive revision is followed immediately by supporting statutory or other legal authority.
Fourteen comments spoke to potential violations of due process through the immediate removal of a company without allowing the company an opportunity to refute the allegations, such as owners accused of criminal offenses. The proposed amendment to 38 CFR 74.2(b) provides that “[i]ndividuals having an ownership or control interest in VetBiz verified businesses must have good character. Concerns owned or controlled by a person(s) who is formally accused of a crime involving business integrity are ineligible for VetBiz VIP Verification. If, after verifying a participant's eligibility the person(s) controlling the participant is found to lack good character, CVE will remove the participant from the VIP database immediately . . .” One commenter, SBA, commented that “Section 74.2(b) of the proposed regulation would seem to deny an applicant due process of law . . . [and] . . . would seem to indicate that if an applicant is formally accused of an offense, that person is not eligible for Vet Biz Verification.” Another commenter stated “I would . . . question if being ‘formally accused’ and not actually proven guilty of any crime, is proper.” After considering these and other similar comments, VA seeks to remove the portion of the proposed rule prescribing the immediate removal of companies, under certain circumstances, prior to allowing such affected company a chance to refute the allegations.
Six comments were lodged complaining that the increase of the waiting period following a denial of verification from 6 months to 12 months does not (i) benefit the Veteran, (ii) is unnecessarily long, and (iii) punitive in nature. One commenter stated that “extending the waiting period from six to 12 months does not allow sufficient time for ineligible concerns to address significant issues” any more than the current rule does. The current rule requires a
VA understands that in order to proceed forward without withdrawing the proposed rule and republishing, the proposed modifications to the proposed rule must be considered a logical outgrowth. Considering the extent of the revisions as outlined in this publication and that VA proposes to include additional modifications to the rule, it is unlikely that the proposed rule as modified would be considered a logical outgrowth. Because of the adverse comments received during the comment period, VA is withdrawing the proposed rule.
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 June 23, 2017, for publication.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission seeks additional comment on a range of possible actions that may advance the Commission's goal of increasing the number of rural Americans with access to wireless communications services. In order to encourage investment in wireless networks, facilitate access to scarce spectrum resources, and promote the rapid deployment of mobile services to rural Americans, the Commission seeks comment on additional, reasonable construction obligations during renewal terms that are targeted to reach rural areas that lack adequate service.
Interested parties may file comments on or before October 2, 2017, and reply comments on or before October 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 10-112, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Anna Gentry,
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
This proceeding shall continue to be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
The
Although the Commission's efforts have facilitated the rapid development of a wide variety of wireless services over the past decade, there remains a real and growing digital divide between rural and urban areas in the United States. While the construction obligations associated with geographic licenses are intended to encourage wide deployment of wireless networks, those obligations require licensees to provide service to only portions of the license area, not the entire area. Even the Commission's most aggressive initial term construction obligation, which requires licensees to cover 70 percent of the geographic area of the license, likely leaves significant portions of rural America, where deployment costs may be higher and demand lower, without meaningful mobile coverage. In addition, the Commission's current rules do not require any additional construction after the initial license term—that is, during subsequent renewal terms.
Therefore, in order to encourage investment in wireless networks, facilitate access to scarce spectrum resources, and promote the rapid deployment of mobile services to rural Americans, the
In the event the Commission adopts construction obligations beyond a licensee's initial term requirements—whether on the opt-in or mandatory basis described above—the
In the event the Commission adopts additional construction obligations for license renewal terms, the
In order to create incentives for additional license construction, including investment in rural areas, the
In the event that the Commission ultimately adopts penalties that result in the return of whole or partial licenses to the Commission's inventory for reassignment, the
Finally, the
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 603), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this document. We request written public comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response to the
The
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission proposes to permit professional theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and that meet certain criteria to obtain a license to operate in the TV bands (and the 600 MHz service band during the post-auction transition period), thereby allowing them to register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices at venues where their events/productions are performed. In addition, the Commission proposes to permit these same users, based on demonstrated need, also to obtain a license to operate on other bands available for use by wireless microphone licensees provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those bands. This proposed action promotes the Commission's goal of accommodating wireless microphone users' needs through access to spectrum resources following the incentive auction and reconfiguration of the TV bands.
Comments are due October 2, 2017. Reply comments are due October 16, 2017.
Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-0688,
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GN Docket No. 14-166, ET Docket No. 14-165, GN Docket No 12-268, FCC 17-95, adopted July 13, 2017, and released July 14, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
1.
2. Under the Commission's part 74 Low Power Auxiliary Stations (LPAS) rules, licensed operations of wireless microphones are permitted on the TV band frequencies on a secondary, non-exclusive basis, with license eligibility restricted to a limited set of specified entities. Prior to 2014, eligibility was restricted to licensees of radio and broadcast television stations, broadcast television network entities, certain cable television system operators, and motion picture and television program producers. In the
3. In providing for this limited expansion of license eligibility, the Commission explained that these particular entities share the need of the other eligible entities for regular and reliable high quality audio services that are free from interference, and often require a large number of wireless microphones to meet their needs. In particular, the Commission concluded that professional sound companies and venues that routinely use 50 or more wireless microphones at events/productions generally have the same needs for interference protection as existing part 74 wireless microphone licensees, particularly given the spectrum requirements associated with use of a large number of wireless microphones. The Commission found that these types of professional users have experience in coordinating wireless microphone uses among themselves at venues or events, even in congested markets, and have similar needs to existing part 74 wireless microphone licensees, and concluded that routine use of 50 microphones was a reasonable threshold for identifying entities that are more likely to require interference protection in order to ensure high quality audio services.
4. In the 2015
5. On April 13, 2017, the broadcast television incentive auction closed, thereby establishing: (1) The revised TV bands that will be repacked and will continue to be available for use by wireless microphones on a secondary licensed or an unlicensed basis, and (2) the 600 MHz Band Plan, which includes the limited spectrum that will be available for wireless microphone operations in the 600 MHz guard band and duplex gap after the end of the post-auction transition period. As a result of the repurposing of 84 megahertz of TV bands spectrum in the incentive auction, the spectrum in the revised and repacked TV bands (channels 2-36) available for licensed and unlicensed wireless microphone use will be substantially reduced in the coming years, although the specific amount of spectrum that remains available will vary depending on the particular locations of the users' wireless microphones operations.
6.
7. The Commission recognizes that the 50 microphone threshold is a proxy for the need for professional, interference-free high-quality audio events/productions. Therefore the Commission proposes to allow certain theater, music, and performing arts organizations that do not meet this threshold but are otherwise able to demonstrate they have these “professional” needs and capabilities to obtain a part 74 license to operate in the TV bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap. This would address the specific concerns raised in the petition by allowing these users to register for interference protection from white space devices when operating in the TV bands. In addition, the Commission proposes to allow such users access to other spectrum bands available to part 74 wireless microphone licensees, including portions of the 900 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, and 7 GHz band spectrum where the need and requisite capabilities are demonstrated. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comment on whether there also may be certain other, similar types of organizations that use wireless microphones for productions where professional-level high-quality audio service is required and these needs cannot otherwise be met, such that the organization also may merit such protection for the same reasons.
8. To fully account for these certain wireless microphone users with professional needs, the Commission proposes to revise the definition of both “large venue owner or operator” and “professional sound company” under our rules. The Commission proposes to define these terms to include
9. To demonstrate a need for high-quality audio during events/productions under prong (b), an applicant for a part 74 license would be required to show that its needs for high-quality audio services for its audiences are identical or substantially similar to those of current part 74 licensees. The Commission seeks comment on what this demonstration would look like, and how the Commission would determine whether there is actual need for a license and that the spectrum would be used in a spectrally efficient manner.
10. Furthermore, to demonstrate the requisite capability to provide professional high quality audio under prong (b), an applicant for such a part 74 license would need to demonstrate that it has the professional-level technical and operational capabilities to carry out its responsibilities associated with holding a license (
11. As in the
12. In addition to proposing to permit professional theater, music, and performing arts organizations that do not meet the 50 microphone threshold but meet the two-part test above to obtain a part 74 license in the TV bands and the 600 MHz duplex gap, the Commission also proposes to permit these entities to qualify for a license in portions of the 900 MHz band, as well as in the 1435-1525 MHz and 6975-7125 MHz band, that also are available for part 74 wireless microphone licensees, upon demonstrated need and ability to meet the necessary coordination and other requirements pertaining to each particular band. The Commission believes that any risk of wireless microphone operations causing harmful interference to these primary licensees is low considering that wireless microphones operate at relatively low power over short ranges.
13. The Commission seeks any additional comment on this proposed case-by-case approach, and on possible alternatives to that approach. Commenting parties proposing alternative approaches should explain the rationale for the metric or standard that they propose, address how it would be a reasonable and appropriate way of identifying the class of wireless microphone users that merit a license, and provide sufficient data and other information supporting such an approach.
14.
15.
16. This proceeding is initiated to explore whether certain professional theater, music, performing arts, or similar organizations that operate wireless microphones on an unlicensed basis and meet certain criteria should be permitted to: (1) Obtain part 74 licenses in the TV bands to enable them to register in the white spaces databases for interference protection from unlicensed white space devices that operate in those bands, and to access the portion of spectrum available to licensed wireless microphone users in the 600 MHz duplex gap (specifically, the 653-657 MHz portion); and (2) obtain part 74 licenses to operate in other bands available for use by part 74 licensed wireless microphone licensees, including portions of the 900 MHz, 1435-1525 MHz, and 6975-7125 MHz bands, provided that they meet the applicable requirements for operating in those bands.
17. The proposal set forth in the FNPRM would apply to certain theater, music production, and performing arts, and similar organizations that currently use wireless microphones on an unlicensed—rather than licensed—basis to meet their audio service needs because they fail to meet the 50 microphone license eligibility requirement to be a “large venue or operator” or “professional sound company” under the Commission's Rules for part 74 Low Power Auxiliary Stations. Under the proposal, an unlicensed wireless microphone applicant for a part 74 license would be required to establish that needs access to more spectrum in these bands is needed for its major events or productions, based on a showing of its particular needs at that specified location, that its need for high-fidelity audio services for its audiences are identical or substantially similar to those of current part 74 licensees, and that it has the professional-level technical and operational capabilities to carry out its responsibilities as a licensee.
18.
19.
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
20.
21.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 74 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and 554.
(a)* * *
(7) Venue owners or operators as defined in § 74.801.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Ketchikan, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 21, 2017, at 5:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Ketchikan Misty Fiords Ranger District, 3101 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, Alaska. For participants that would like to attend via teleconference, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Penny Richardson, Acting RAC Coordinator, by phone at 907-228-4105 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Introduce new Acting District Ranger,
2. Review post RAC projects, and
3. Update members on status of approved RAC projects.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 15, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Penny Richardson, Acting RAC Coordinator, Ketchikan Misty Fiords Ranger District, 3101 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Call for nominations.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is seeking nominations for the Forestry Research Advisory Council of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (the Act), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Additional information on the FRAC can be found by visiting the FRAC Web site at:
Written nominations must be received by October 16, 2017. Nominations must contain a completed application packet that includes the nominee's name, resume, and completed Form AD-755 (Advisory Committee Membership Background Information). The package must be sent to the address below.
Tracy C. Hancock, USDA Forest Service, Office of the Deputy Chief, Research and Development, 201 14th Street SW., Mail Stop 1120, Washington, DC 20250-11 by express mail or overnight courier service. If sent via the U.S. Postal Service, they must be sent to the following address: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Office of the Deputy Chief, Research and Development, Mail Stop 1120, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1120.
Tracy C. Hancock, FRAC Designated Federal Official (DFO), USDA Forest Service, Office of the Deputy Chief, Research and Development, by telephone at (202) 205-1724, or by email at
The FRAC will be comprised of no more than 20 members approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. The FRAC membership will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented, functions to be performed, and will represent a broad array of expertise, leadership and relevancy to a membership category. Geographic
The appointment of members to the FRAC will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. The public is invited to submit nominations for membership on the FRAC, either as a self-nomination or a nomination of any qualified and interested person. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the interest areas listed above. To be considered for membership, nominees must submit a:
1. Identify what interest group they would represent and how they are qualified to represent that interest group;
2. Provide a cover letter stating why they want to serve on the FRAC and what they can contribute;
3. Provide a resume showing their past experience in working successfully as part of a group working on forest research activities; and
4. Complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee Membership Background Information. The Form AD-755 may be obtained from Forest Service contact person or from the following Web site:
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA policies shall be followed in all in all appointments to FRAC. To ensure that the recommendations of the FRAC have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership will, to the extent practicable, include individuals with demonstrated ability to represent all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Quincy, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 23, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Plumas-Sierra County Fairgrounds Mineral Building, 204 Fairground Road, Quincy, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Lee Anne Schramel, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-283-7850 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review project proposals, and
2. Make project funding recommendations for Title II funds.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by one week prior to the meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Lee Anne Schramel, RAC Coordinator, Plumas NF Headquarters, 159 Lawrence Street, Quincy, California 95971; by email to
All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Central Montana Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Stanford, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the
The meeting will be held on September 21, 2017, at 6:30 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Judith Ranger District, 109 Central Avenue, Stanford, Montana.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Dave Cunningham, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-791-7700 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendiations on proposed projects for Title II funds.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 10, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Dave Cunningham, RAC Coordinator, Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest Great Falls Office, 1220 38th St. North, Great Falls, Montana 59405; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Everett, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 12, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Tracy O'Toole, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 425-783-6015 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review project proposals, and
2. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 8, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Tracy O'Toole, DFO, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 3A, Everett, Washington 98201; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Wrangell-Petersburg Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Wrangell, Alaska and Petersburg, Alaska. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
The meeting will be held on Saturday, September 23, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., or until business is concluded.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Wrangell Ranger District, 525 Bennett Street, Wrangell, Alaska; and at the Petersburg Ranger District, 12 North Nordic Drive, Petersburg, Alaska. The two locations will be connected via videoteleconference. Interested persons may attend in person at either location, or by teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend by teleconference, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Petersburg Ranger District or the Wrangell Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
David Zimmerman, District Ranger, by phone at 907-772-3871 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review progress of previously funded projects;
2. Review new project proposals; and
3. Conclude any business that may be remaining concerning recommendations for allocation of Title II funding to projects.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 18, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to David Zimmerman, District Ranger, Petersburg Ranger District, Post Office Box 1328, Petersburg, Alaska 99833; or Robert Dalrymple, District Ranger, Wrangell Ranger District, Post Office Box 51, Wrangell, Alaska 99929; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Everett, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 15, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Tracy O'Toole, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 425-783-6015 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review project proposals, and
2. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 8, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Tracy O'Toole, DFO, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Ave, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington 98201; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The West Virginia Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Elkins, West Virginia. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 26, 2017, from 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held in the Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building, First Floor Conference Room, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference or by video conference, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Julie Fosbender, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 304-636-1800 extension 169 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to evaluate and recommend Title II project proposals.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 20, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Julie Fosbender, RAC Coordinator, Monongahela National Forest Headquarters Building, 200 Sycamore Street, Elkins, West Virginia 26241; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Bly, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 14, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Bly Ranger Station, Upper Conference Room, 64011 Highway 140, Bly, Oregon.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
David Brillenz, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 541-947-6328, or by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review current RAC projects being implemented on Lake and Klamath Counties, and
2. Review future roles and responsibilities for the Fremont and Winema RAC concerning current and future recreation on the Fremont-Winema National Forest.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request it in writing by September 7, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Everett, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Tracy O'Toole, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 425-783-6015 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review project proposals, and
2. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 11, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Tracy O'Toole, DFO, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Ave, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington 98201; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Fresno and Madera Counties Resource Advisory Committees (RAC) will meet in Clovis, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act.
The meeting will be held on September 14, 2017, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Sierra National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Julie Roberts, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 559-297-0706 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Discuss and agree on general operating procedures,
2. Elect a chair,
3. Review project proposals, and
4. Vote to recommend project proposals for Title II Funds.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Snohomish-South Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Everett, Washington. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 22, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 3A, Everett, Washington. Participants who would like to attend by teleconference please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Tracy O'Toole, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 425-783-6015 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review project proposals, and
2. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 15, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Tracy O'Toole, DFO, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF Supervisor's Office, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 3A, Everett, Washington 98201; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Central Montana Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Stanford, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on September 14, 2017, at 6:30 p.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Judith Ranger District, 109 Central Avenue, Stanford, Montana.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Dave Cunningham, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-791-7700 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendiations on proposed projects for Title II funds.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 10, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Dave Cunningham, RAC Coordinator, Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest Great Falls Office, 1220 38th St. North, Great Falls, Montana 59405; by email to
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Central Time) September 6, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss and likely vote on project topic of study.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CDT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-695-0609, conference ID number: 9329659. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of availability of a final programmatic environmental impact statement.
The First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet”) announces the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Region (“Final PEIS”). The Final PEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed nationwide public safety broadband network in the Central Region (Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Wisconsin).
The Final PEIS is available for download from
For more information on the Final PEIS, contact Amanda Goebel Pereira, NEPA Coordinator, First Responder Network Authority, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) (“NEPA”) requires federal agencies to undertake an assessment of environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a final decision and implementing the action. NEPA requirements apply to any federal project, decision, or action that may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. NEPA also establishes the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), which issued regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (see 40 CFR parts 1500-1508). Among other considerations, CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.28 recommend the use of
Due to the geographic scope of FirstNet (all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories) and the diversity of ecosystems potentially traversed by the project, FirstNet has elected to prepare five regional PEISs. The five PEISs are divided into the East, Central, West, South, and Non-Contiguous Regions. The Central Region consists of Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Wisconsin. The Final PEIS analyzes potential impacts of the deployment and operation of the NPSBN on the natural and human environment in the Central Region, in accordance with FirstNet's responsibilities under NEPA.
Now that this PEIS has been completed and once a Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed, the proposed FirstNet projects can begin to submit the site-specific environmental documentation to determine if the proposed project has been adequately evaluated in the PEIS or whether it instead warrants a Categorical Exclusion, an Environmental Assessment, or an Environmental Impact Statement.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (the Department) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after September 2017, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
The Department no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.
Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.
All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS Web site at
The Department will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on foundry coke products (foundry coke) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable September 1, 2017.
Courtney Canales, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-4997.
On July 31, 2001, the Department published its final determination in the less-than-fair value investigation of foundry coke from the PRC.
The product covered under the antidumping duty order is coke larger than 100 mm (4 inches) in maximum diameter and at least 50 percent of which is retained on a 100 mm (4 inch) sieve, of a kind used in foundries. The foundry coke products subject to the antidumping duty order were classifiable under subheading 2704.00.00.10 (as of Jan 1, 2000) and are currently classifiable under subheading 2704.00.00.11 (as of July 1, 2000) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to section 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order,
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.218, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 1, 2017.
Maria Tatarska at (202) 482-1562, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 9, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of certain uncoated groundwood paper (UGW paper) from Canada, filed in proper form on behalf of North Pacific Paper Company (NORPAC, the petitioner).
On August 11, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of UGW paper from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing UGW paper in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on August 9, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for this investigation is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
The product covered by this investigation is UGW paper from Canada. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of UGW paper to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe UGW paper, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 18, 2017. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 28, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of this LTFV investigation.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that UGW paper, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
Based on information provided in the Petition, the share of total estimated U.S. production of the domestic like product in calendar year 2016 represented by the petitioner did not account for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Therefore, in accordance with section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we polled the industry.
On August 10, 2017, we issued polling questionnaires to all known
Section 732(c)(4)(B) of the Act states that (i) the Department “shall disregard the position of domestic producers who oppose the petition if such producers are related to foreign producers, as defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii), unless such domestic producers demonstrate that their interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping duty order;” and (ii) the Department “may disregard the position of domestic producers of a domestic like product who are importers of the subject merchandise.” In addition, 19 CFR 351.203(e)(4) states that the position of a domestic producer that opposes the petition (i) will be disregarded if such producer is related to a foreign producer or to a foreign exporter under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, unless such domestic producer demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that its interests as a domestic producer would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping order; and (ii) may be disregarded if the producer is an importer of the subject merchandise or is related to such an importer under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act.
We received objection to the Petition from those that produce domestic like product and are related to a foreign producer of subject merchandise and/or who imported subject merchandise from Canada. We have analyzed the information provided in the polling questionnaire responses and information provided in other submissions to the Department. Based on our analysis, we disregarded the position in opposition to the petition pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(B) of the Act. When the position in opposition to the petition is disregarded, the industry support requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act are satisified.
The data collected demonstrate that the domestic producers of UGW paper which support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, once the opposition is disregarded, account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports and significant increase in the volume of subject imports relative to U.S. consumption; reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse effects on production, capacity utilization, U.S. shipments, and employment; declines in financial performance; and capacity closures and conversions.
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at LTFV upon which the Department based its decision to initiate the AD investigation of imports of UGW paper from Canada. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the AD Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based the U.S. price on export price (EP) using pricing information related to UGW paper produced in, and exported from, Canada, and sold or offered for sale in the United States. This information was obtained from a confidential source.
Petitioner based NV on pricing information relating to UGW paper produced in, and sold or offered for sale in Canada, that was obtained through confidential market research.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of UGW paper from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for UGW paper from Canada covered by this initiation range from 23.45 percent to 54.97 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of UGW paper from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.
The petitioner named eight companies in Canada as producers/exporters of UGW paper.
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of UGW paper from Canada are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain paper that has not been coated on either side and with 50 percent or more of the cellulose fiber content consisting of groundwood pulp, including groundwood pulp made from recycled paper, weighing not more than 90 grams per square meter. Groundwood pulp includes all forms of pulp produced from a mechanical pulping process, such as thermo-mechanical process (TMP), chemi-thermo mechanical process (CTMP), bleached chemi-thermo mechanical process (BCTMP) or any other mechanical pulping process. The scope includes paper shipped in any form, including but not limited to both rolls and sheets.
Certain uncoated groundwood paper includes but is not limited to standard newsprint, high bright newsprint, book publishing, directory, and printing and writing papers. The scope includes paper that is white, off-white, cream, or colored.
Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of certain uncoated groundwood paper printed with final content of printed text or graphic. Also excluded are papers that otherwise meet this definition, but which have undergone a supercalendering process.
Certain uncoated groundwood paper is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in several subheadings, including 4801.00.0120, 4801.00.0140, 4802.61.1000, 4802.61.2000, 4802.61.3110, 4802.61.3191, 4802.61.6040, 4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.6140, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, and 4802.69.3000. Subject merchandise may also be imported under several additional subheadings including 4805.91.5000, 4805.91.7000, and 4805.91.9000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 1, 2017.
David Crespo at (202) 482-3693, or Whitley Herndon at (202) 482-6274, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 9, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of certain uncoated groundwood paper (UGW paper) from Canada, filed in proper form on behalf of North Pacific Paper Company (NORPAC, or the petitioner).
On August 11 and 14, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of Canada (GOC) and the provincial governments of Alberta (GOA), British Colombia (GBS), Newfoundland and Labrador (GNL), Ontario (GOO), Quebec (GOQ), and New Brunswick (GNB) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to imports of UGW paper from Canada and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing UGW paper in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on August 9, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is UGW paper from Canada. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that UGW paper, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
Based on information provided in the Petition, the share of total estimated U.S. production of the domestic like product in calendar year 2016 represented by the petitioner did not account for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we polled the industry.
On August 10, 2017, we issued polling questionnaires to all known producers of UGW paper, identified in the Petition.
Section 702(c)(4)(B) of the Act states that (i) the Department “shall disregard the position of domestic producers who oppose the petition if such producers are related to foreign producers, as defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii), unless such domestic producers demonstrate that their interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping duty order;” and (ii) the Department “may disregard the position of domestic producers of a domestic like product who are importers of the subject merchandise.” In addition, 19 CFR 351.203(e)(4) states that the position of a domestic producer that opposes the petition (i) will be disregarded if such producer is related to a foreign producer or to a foreign exporter under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, unless such domestic producer demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that its interests as a domestic producer would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping order; and (ii) may be disregarded if the producer is an importer of the subject merchandise or is related to such an importer under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act.
We received objection to the Petition from those that produce domestic like product and are related to a foreign producer of subject merchandise and/or who imported subject merchandise from Canada. We have analyzed the information provided in the polling questionnaire responses and information provided in other submissions to the Department. Based on our analysis, we disregarded the opposition pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(B) of the Act. When the position in opposition to the petition is disregarded, the industry support requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act are satisfied.
The data collected demonstrate that the domestic producers of UGW paper which support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, once the opposition is disregarded, account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.
Because Canada is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Canada materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports and significant increase in the volume of subject imports relative to U.S. consumption; reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; adverse effects on production, capacity utilization, U.S. shipments, and employment; declines in financial performance; and capacity closures and conversions.
Based on the examination of the CVD Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of UGW paper from Canada benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the government of Canada. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 63 of the 65 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate, or not initiate, on each program,
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
The petitioner named seven companies as producers/exporters of UGW paper in Canada.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection by 5:00 p.m. ET three calendar days after publication. The Department will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection.
Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. If respondent selection is necessary, within 20 days of publication of this notice, we intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection based upon comments received from interested parties and our analysis of the record information.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the GOC
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of UGW paper from Canada are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain paper that has not been coated on either side and with 50 percent or more of the cellulose fiber content consisting of groundwood pulp, including groundwood pulp made from recycled paper, weighing not more than 90 grams per square meter. Groundwood pulp includes all forms of pulp produced from a mechanical pulping process, such as thermo-mechanical process (TMP), chemi-thermo mechanical process (CTMP), bleached chemi-thermo mechanical process (BCTMP) or any other mechanical pulping process. The scope includes paper shipped in any form, including but not limited to both rolls and sheets.
Certain uncoated groundwood paper includes but is not limited to standard newsprint, high bright newsprint, book publishing, directory, and printing and writing papers. The scope includes paper that is white, off-white, cream, or colored.
Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of certain uncoated groundwood paper printed with final content of printed text or graphic. Also excluded are papers that otherwise meet this definition, but which have undergone a supercalendering process.
Certain uncoated groundwood paper is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in several subheadings, including 4801.00.0120, 4801.00.0140, 4802.61.1000, 4802.61.2000, 4802.61.3110, 4802.61.3191, 4802.61.6040, 4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.6140, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, and 4802.69.3000. Subject merchandise may also be imported under several additional subheadings including 4805.91.5000, 4805.91.7000, and 4805.91.9000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain high pressure steel cylinders (HPSCs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Applicable August 28, 2017.
Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6491.
On June 21, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Department) published the notice of the antidumping duty order on high pressure steel cylinders from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by the
Excluded from the scope of the
Merchandise covered by the
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to section 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of the AD order.
Applicable September 1, 2017.
Mary Kolberg, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785.
On December 28, 1994, the Department published the AD order on certain cased pencils from the PRC.
Imports covered by the
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is postponing until November 13, 2017, the deadline for issuing the final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of certain softwood lumber products (softwood lumber) from Canada, and is extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months. As the deadline for the final determination of the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of softwood lumber from Canada is aligned with the deadline for the final determination of the LTFV investigation, the final CVD determination will also be issued no later than November 13, 2017.
Applicable September 1, 2017.
Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193.
On April 28, 2017, and June 30, 2017, respectively, the Department published its preliminary determinations in the CVD and LTFV investigations of softwood lumber from Canada.
On May 26, 2017, and June 26, 2017, Canfor Corporation (Canfor), Resolute FP Canada Inc. (Resolute), Tolko Marketing and Sales Ltd. and Tolko Industries Ltd. (Tolko), and West Fraser Mills Ltd., (West Fraser) (collectively, the Company Respondents), requested that the Department fully extend the deadline for the final LTFV determination, and extend the application of the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period of not more than six months.
Given the complexity of these investigations and the volume of information on the records of these proceedings that needs to be analyzed, the Department finds that postponement is warranted in the LTFV investigation and the aligned CVD investigation covering softwood lumber from Canada. Further, because of the ongoing discussions between the Governments of the United States and Canada focusing on a durable solution to this long-standing trade dispute, postponement of these aligned investigations is also warranted. This additional time will afford the Department the time to both address the factual and legal matters on the records of these proceedings, as well as continue discussions on this broader cross-border trade dispute.
Therefore, pursuant to 735(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department is (1) postponing the LTFV final determination until no later than November 13, 2017, which is 135 days after the date of the publication of the
This notice is issued and published pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(g).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 1, 2017.
The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that imports of uncoated paper with a GE brightness of 83 ±1% (83 Bright paper), otherwise meeting the description of in-scope merchandise, from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal constitute merchandise “altered in form or appearance in minor respects” from in-scope merchandise are subject to the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain uncoated paper (uncoated paper).
William Miller at (202) 482-3906, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 9, 2017, the Department published the
The merchandise covered by the
The merchandise subject to this anti-circumvention inquiry consists of 83 Bright paper with a GE brightness of 83 ±1%, and otherwise meeting the description of the scope of the
The Department conducted this anti-circumvention determination in accordance with section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(i). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered user at
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we determine, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i), that imports of 83 Bright paper, otherwise meeting the description of in-scope merchandise, constitute merchandise “altered in form or appearance in minor respects” from in-scope merchandise and are subject to the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of 83 Bright paper entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 7, 2016, the date of publication of the initiation of this inquiry, until appropriate liquidation instructions are issued. We will also instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the applicable rates for each unliquidated entry of the product entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 7, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 185 MacArthur Drive, New Bedford, MA 02740; phone: (774) 634-2000.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Groundfish Committee plans to discuss Framework Adjustment 57/Specifications and Management Measures. They will receive a report from the Transboundary Management and Guidance Committee (TMGC) on US/CA stocks—Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, Eastern GB (EGB) cod, and EGB haddock Receive a report from the Groundfish Plan Development Team (PDT) on adjusting: common pool trimester total allowable catches (TACs), Atlantic halibut accountability measures (AMs), and Windowpane flounder AMs for large mesh/non-groundfish fisheries (
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) annually collects information from seafood and industrial fishing processing plants on the volume and value of their processed fishery products and their monthly employment figures. NOAA also collects monthly production volume of fish meal, oil, and solubles. The information gathered is used by NOAA in the economic and social analyses developed when proposing and evaluating fishery management actions.
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 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Observer Advisory Committee (OAC) will meet September 19-20, 2017.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 19 and Wednesday, September 20, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific time.
The meeting will be held at the FMA Observer Training Center, Room 1055, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. Teleconference available at (907) 271-2896.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
1. Review draft 2018 Observer Annual Deployment Plan;
2. Review draft Statement of Work for observer/EM contract;
3. Discuss observer analyses, including report from OAC subgroup on options for increasing partial coverage selection rates, and recommendations to address observer issues related to tendering; and
4. Scheduling and other business. More details available at
The meeting will be listening-only for those that are not on the OAC.
The meeting is via teleconference. Request for auxiliary aids should be directed to Maria Shawback at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
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).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified three primary objectives for monitoring catch. First, monitoring must ensure independent verification of catch weight, species composition, and location data for every delivery by a catcher vessel or every pot by a C/P. Second, all catch must be weighed accurately using NMFS-approved scales to determine the weight of total catch. Third, the system must provide a verifiable record of the weight of each delivery. To effectively manage fisheries, NMFS must have data that will provide reliable independent estimates of the total catch.
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
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).
An international system exists to use satellites to detect and locate ships, aircraft, and individuals in distress if they are equipped with an emergency radio beacon. Persons purchasing a digital distress beacon, operating in the frequency range of 406.000 to 406.100
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 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Projects/Topics Management; Volunteers; Data Management Action Teams.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Projects/Topics Management; Volunteers; Data Management Action Teams via webinar.
The Projects/Topics Management Team meeting will be held Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1 p.m.; Volunteers Team on Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1 p.m.; and Data Management Team on Friday, September 29, 2017 at 1 p.m. Each meeting is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. Additional Action Team webinar and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone 843/302-8433 or toll free 866/SAFMC-10; FAX 843/769-4520; email:
The Council created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of Volunteers, Data Management, Projects/Topics Management, Finance, and Communication/Outreach/Education to develop program policies and operations for the Council's Citizen Science Program.
Each Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee.
Items to be addressed during these meetings:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Electronic Monitoring Workgroup (EMWG) will hold a public meeting on September 18, 2017, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time, AFSC, Traynor Room in Building 4, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 18, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Time.
The meeting will be held in the FMA Observer Training Room 1055 AFSC, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA. It will also be available by teleconference at (907) 271-2896.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Crab Plan Team will meet September 19-21, 2017.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 19 through Thursday, September 21, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time, each day.
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, (AFSC) Traynor Room, Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA.
Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
Meeting materials will be made available on the Council Web site (
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by “Reparations Complaint” by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
Eugene Smith, Director, Office of Proceedings, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5371; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
In 1984, the Commission promulgated part 12 of the Commission regulations to administer Section 14. Rule 12.13 provides the standards and procedures for filing a Reparations complaint. Specifically, paragraph (b) describes the form and content requirements of a complaint. CFTC Form 30 mirrors the requirements set forth in paragraph (b).
The Commission began utilizing Form 30 in or about 1984. The form was created to assist customers, who are typically
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Public Meetings.
The Rock Island and Chicago Districts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), will host three public meetings to discuss the draft report titled
USACE will hold public meetings on:
1. September 11 from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the James R. Thompson Center;
2. September 14 from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. at Muskegon Community College; and
3. September 18 from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. at Joliet Junior College, “U” Conference Center.
The addresses for the public meetings are:
1. James R. Thompson Center, 100 W Randolph St., Chicago, Illinois 60604;
2. Muskegon Community College, Collegiate Hall, 221 S. Quarterline Road, Muskegon, Michigan 49442; and
3. Joliet Junior College, “U” Conference Center, 1215 Houbolt Road, Joliet, Illinois 60431.
Written comments, statements, testimonies and supporting information are accepted between August 7, 2017 and October 2, 2017 and considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public meetings. Written comments may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
• Facebook Live participants can use the “Live Chat” feature; however, these comments will not be recorded in the official record.
•
•
The purpose of these public meetings is to receive oral and written comments on the draft report/EIS titled
USACE asks those wanting to make oral comments to register on the GLMRIS project Web site at
Comments, including the names and addresses of those who comment, received during the comment period will be posted on the GLMRIS project Web site after the comment period has ended. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted, considered, and posted. Commenters may indicate that they do not wish to have their name or other personal information made available on the Web site. However, USACE cannot guarantee that information withheld from the Web site will be maintained as confidential. Persons requesting confidentially should be aware that, under the Freedom of Information Act, confidentiality may be granted in only limited circumstances.
Changes to these meetings will be posted at
This action is being undertaken pursuant to the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007, Section 3061(d), Public Law 110-114, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C 4321,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 31, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Edward West, 202-245-6145.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Cancellation of Open Meeting.
On August 21, 2017, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting on September 6-7, 2017, of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford. This
The meeting scheduled for September 6-7, 2017, announced in the August 21, 2017, issue of the
Kristen Holmes, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, H5-20, Richland, WA, 99352; Phone: (509) 376-5803; or Email:
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 20, 2017, 4:00 p.m.
Frank H. Rogers Science and Technology Building, 755 East Flamingo, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.
Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 232 Energy Way, M/S 167, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 630-0522; Fax (702) 295-2025 or Email:
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Tuesday, September 26, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, September 27, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
DoubleTree Crystal City, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA.
Christine Chalk, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research; SC-21/Germantown Building; U. S. Department of Energy; 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone (301) 903-7486.
The meeting agenda includes an update on the budget, accomplishments and planned activities of the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program and the Exascale computing project; an update on the Office of Science; updates from the two active subcommittees including recommendations from the Subcommittee on Future Computing Technologies; technical presentations on artificial intelligence and Exascale applications; and there will be an opportunity comments from the public. The meeting will conclude at noon on September 27, 2017. Agenda updates and presentations will be posted on the ASCAC Web site prior to the meeting:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725U, Mandatory Reliability Standards: Mandatory Reliability Standard CIP-014.
Comments on the collection of information are due October 31, 2017.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC17-14-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Transmission owners and transmission operators must keep data or evidence to show compliance with the standard for three years unless directed by its Compliance Enforcement Authority. If a responsible entity is found non-compliant, it must keep information related to the non-compliance until mitigation is complete and approved, or for the three years, whichever is longer.
The hourly cost figures are based on data for wages plus benefits from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (as of 11/9/2016) at
1. For electrical engineers, $64.29/hr., rounded to $64/hr.
2. for attorneys, $129.12/hr., rounded to $129/hr.
3. for administrative staff, $37.75/hr., rounded to $38/hr.
The record retention cost is based on the administrative staff category; R3 is based on the attorney category; Requirements R1, R4, R5 and R6 are based on the electrical engineer category; and R2 is a mix of the electrical engineer and related engineering review process (30 hrs. at $64/hr.) and attorney (4 hrs. at $129/hr.) categories. The resulting average hourly figure is $71.65, rounded to $72/hr.
1. By order issued February 3, 2017, in anticipation of a lack of a quorum, the Commission delegated further authority to its staff to take certain actions.
2. Take notice that a Commission quorum was reestablished on August 10, 2017, and, with the reestablishment of a Commission quorum, the Commission's delegation of further authority to its staff accordingly terminated on August 24, 2017.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NO
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0947, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Air and Radiation, (6204J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Commission announces the next meeting date, time, and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (hereinafter the “Committee”). The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of consumers (including underserved populations, such as Native Americans, persons living in rural areas, older persons, people with disabilities, and persons for whom English is not their primary
September 18, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Commission Meeting Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, (202) 418-2809 (voice or Relay); email
This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 17-792, released August 23, 2017, announcing the Agenda, Date, and Time of the Committee's Next Meeting.
At its September 18, 2017 meeting, the Committee is expected to consider a recommendation from its Robocalls Working Group regarding blocking of unwanted calls. The Committee will also receive briefings from Commission staff on issues of interest to the Committee.
A limited amount of time will be available for comments from the public. If time permits, the public may ask questions of presenters via the email address
The meeting is open to the public and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, assistive listening devices, and Braille copies of the agenda and committee roster will be provided on site. Meetings of the Committee are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before October 2, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
To implement these reforms and conduct competitive bidding for CAF, MF, and RAF support, the Commission adopted new rules containing information collection requirements that would be used to determine whether an applicant is generally qualified to bid for universal service support. The Commission also adopted rules containing information collection requirements that would be used to determine whether an applicant is specifically qualified to bid for Phase I of the Mobility Fund and Tribal Mobility Fund.
Because support under Phase I of the Mobility Fund and Tribal Mobility Fund has been awarded, the Commission is revising the currently approved information collection to remove the information collections requirements that apply specifically to applicants seeking to participate in competitive bidding for Mobility Fund Phase I and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I support and to retain only those information collections requirements that apply generally to applicants seeking to participate in competitive bidding for universal service support. The Commission also requests that the title of this information collection be changed to “Section 1.21001, Participation in Competitive Bidding for Support; Section 1.21002, Prohibition of Certain Communications During the Competitive Bidding Process” to reflect the revised information collection.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) announces the first meeting and agenda of the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment (ACDDE).
Monday, September 25, 2017, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.
Jamila Bess Johnson, Designated Federal Officer, Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2608,
This meeting is open to members of the public. The FCC will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will also provide audio and video coverage of the meeting over the Internet at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that NIZORAL (ketoconazole) tablets, 200 milligrams (mg), were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to NIZORAL, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that reference NIZORAL as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Robin Fastenau, Center for Drug Evaluation Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4510.
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.
NIZORAL (ketoconazole) tablets, 200 mg, is the subject of NDA 018-533 and was originally held by Johnson & Johnson Research and Development, L.L.C., now known as Janssen Research & Development, L.L.C. (Janssen). It was initially approved on June 12, 1981. NIZORAL should be used only when other effective antifungal therapy is not available or tolerated and the potential benefits are considered to outweigh the potential risks. NIZORAL is indicated for the treatment of the following systemic fungal infections in patients who have failed or who are intolerant to other therapies: blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, histoplasmosis, chromomycosis, and paracoccidioidomycosis.
In a letter dated May 22, 2008, Janssen, which at that time was operating as Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C., acting on behalf of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., notified FDA that NIZORAL (ketoconazole) tablets, 200 mg, were being discontinued and requested withdrawal of NDA 018-533. In the
After reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that NIZORAL (ketoconazole) tablets, 200 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of NIZORAL (ketoconazole) tablets, 200 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list NIZORAL (ketoconazole) tablets, 200 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. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of approved ANDAs that refer to NIZORAL. Additional ANDAs that refer to NIZORAL (ketoconazole) tablets, 200 mg, may also 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's (FDA or Agency) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) are announcing the end of support for Version 1.2 of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) and an
Submit either electronic or written comments at any time.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Fatima Frye, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4863, email:
On December 17, 2014, FDA published final guidance for industry “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” (eStudy Data guidance) posted on FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web page at
The transition date for the end of FDA support for SDTM Version 1.2, Implementation Guide Version 3.1.2, and Implementation Guide Version 3.1.2, Amendment Version 1.2 is March 15, 2018. Therefore, FDA support for SDTM Version 1.2, Implementation Guide Version 3.1.2, and Implementation Guide Version 3.1.2, Amendment 1.2 will end for studies that start after March 15, 2019. The FDA Data Standards Catalog (see
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the referenced material at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Procedures for Meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.” The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is issuing this guidance to provide additional information regarding the processes for meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee panels other than the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). This guidance describes the general circumstances in which CDRH consults with a panel, the process for exchange of information among CDRH, the members of the panel, industry, and the public, and the conduct of panel meetings. This guidance supplements existing FDA Agency-wide guidance on the conduct of Advisory Committee meetings.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
James Swink, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1609, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6313.
CDRH is issuing this guidance to provide additional information regarding the processes for meetings of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee panels other than DRP. The term “panel,” as used in this guidance, refers to the panels established under the Medical Devices Advisory Committee charter excluding DRP. This guidance describes the general circumstances in which CDRH consults with a panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, the process for exchange of information among CDRH, the members of the panel, industry, and the public, and the conduct of panel meetings. The Medical Devices Advisory Committee includes 17 panels other than DRP (Ref. 1). The panels, according to their specialty area and authorization, advise the Commissioner of Food and Drugs in discharging responsibilities as they relate to assuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices, and as required, any other
In the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on the panel meeting process for medical devices. 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. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 860 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0138; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332.
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
1. CDRH's Medical Devices Advisory Committee, available at
2. “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory Panel Meetings,” July 2000, available at
3. “Panel Review of Premarket Approval Applications #P91-2 (blue book memo),” May 1991, available at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Acting Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at:
The program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant proposals 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 proposals applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Eye Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).
A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the Internet at
Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Pub. L. 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
*The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will meet in Arlington, Virginia, to review and discuss various issues relating to national maritime security. All meetings will be open to the public.
The Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, from 12 Noon to 4:30 p.m. and on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 12 Noon. This meeting may close early if all business is finished.
The meeting will be held in the Holiday Inn Arlington, Ballroom 1, 4610 North Fairfax Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203. The hotel's Web site is:
This meeting will be broadcast via a web enabled interactive online format and teleconference line. To participate via teleconference, dial 1-855-475-2447; the pass code to join is 764 990 20#. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this meeting via the online web format, please log onto
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the individual listed in
Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593, Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581; telephone 202-372-1108 or email
Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
The Committee will meet to review, discuss and formulate recommendations on the following issues:
(1) Cyber Security Guidance in the Marine Transportation System. The Committee will discuss and receive a brief on the current efforts to implement cyber security strategies. The Committee will also provide recommendations on current effort to provide Cyber Security Guidance.
(2) Regulatory Reform effort update. The Committee will discuss the efforts of the Regulatory Reform working group to address the tasking put forward to the Committee in August (NMSAC Task T2017-01).
(3) Member Report. The Committee members will each provide an update on the security developments in each of the respective member's representative segment.
(4) Public Comment period.
The Committee will meet to review, discuss and formulate recommendations on the following issues:
(1) Extremely Hazardous Cargo Strategy. In July 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard tasked the Committee to work with the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee to assist in the development of an Extremely Hazardous Cargo Strategy Implementation Plan. The Committee will discuss and receive an update from the Extremely Hazardous Cargo Working Group on their efforts.
(2) Future Policies Tasking. In October, 2016 the Committee was tasked with identifying future security issues for U.S. Coast Guard to consider. The Committee will discuss and receive an update on this effort.
(3) Public comment period.
Public comments or questions will be taken throughout the meeting as the Committee discusses the issues and prior to deliberations and voting. There will also be a public comment period at the end of each meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes.
Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed in the
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Data collection will occur during two evaluation components with each component including data collection activities and analyses. These components include two waves of a web-based survey of Continuums of Care, and site visits with each demonstration community and the three selected comparison sites.
Component one, a web-based survey of Continuums of Care (CoCs) in the U.S. will be administered twice, in Years 1 and 4 of the evaluation, to all CoC program directors across the country excluding the 10 YHDP grantees and three comparison communities, for a total of 400 survey participants each wave. These data will provide an understanding of system developments occurring across the country and provide a comparative basis for understanding the demonstration communities. The survey will ask questions about the nature and capacity of the prevention and crisis approaches in place, the housing and service solutions, and the strategies for screening and assessing youth. It will focus on understanding the coordination and collaboration between the homeless assistance system and mainstream service systems, as well as whether and how the system prioritizes and coordinates referrals to the different programs.
The second data collection component is comprised of site visits which will be conducted with each demonstration community and the three comparison non-grantee CoCs. The site visits will include interviews with key informants, with project technical assistance (TA) providers, and youth, as well as focus groups with different subgroups of youth. The site visit guide will describe data collection procedures to be followed to ensure rigor and consistency across site visit teams. The first site visit will be conducted as soon as OMB approval is received to collect information while grantees are developing their coordinated community plans. The second site visit will be conducted in early 2019 to explore how the plans are being implemented, as well as barriers to or facilitators of change. The third and final site visits will be scheduled after community plans have been in effect for at least one year (mid-2020).
As summarized below, we estimated the hourly cost per response using the May 2015 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wages for the labor categories, Social and Community Services Manager (11-9151, $30.54) and Social and Community Services Specialist, All Other (21-1099, $20.14). We used the Social and Community Services Manager rate for the CoC Program Directors and Program Administrators. We used the Social and Community Services Specialist, All Other rate for YHDP grantee staff, service providers, and TA providers. For the government workers, we used an average of state and local Social and Community Services Specialist, All Other (21-2099, $24.56). The youth hourly wage is based on the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and adoption of methodology changes for estimating FMRs.
Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (USHA), as amended by the Housing Opportunities Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA), requires the Secretary to publish FMRs not less than annually, adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year. Section 8(c)(1)(B) of USHA, as amended by HOTMA, requires that HUD publish for comment a notice of proposed material changes in the methodology for estimating FMRs and a notice containing HUD's final decisions regarding such proposed substantial methodological changes. On May 26, 2017, HUD published a notice proposing changes to the methodology used for estimating FMRs and requested public comment.
This notice adopts HUD's May 26, 2017 proposed material changes to the methodology for estimating FMRs and notifies interested parties that FY 2018 FMRs are available at
HUD invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the FMRs and to request reevaluation of the FY 2018 FMRs to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments/Request for Reevaluation” section. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
To receive consideration as public comments or reevaluation requests, comments or requests must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.
For technical information on the methodology used to develop FMRs or a listing of all FMRs, please call the HUD USER information line at 800-245-2691 or access the information on the HUD USER Web site
Questions related to use of FMRs or voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local HUD program staff. Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Peter B. Kahn of the Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research at HUD headquarters, 451 7th Street SW., Room 8208, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2409 (this is not a toll-free number), or they may be reached at
Section 8 of the USHA (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes housing assistance to aid lower-income families in renting safe and decent housing. Housing assistance payments are limited by FMRs established by HUD for different geographic areas. In the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the FMR is the basis for determining the “payment standard amount” used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for an assisted family. See 24 CFR 982.503. HUD also uses the FMRs to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, initial rents for housing assistance payment contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program, rent ceilings for rental units in both the HOME Investment Partnerships program and the Emergency Solution Grants program, calculation of maximum award amounts for Continuum of Care recipients and the maximum amount of rent a recipient may pay for property leased with Continuum of Care funds, and calculation of flat rents in Public Housing units. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, and safe rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities and is typically set at the 40th percentile of the distribution of gross rents. HUD's FMR calculations represent HUD's best effort to estimate the 40th percentile gross rents paid by recent movers into standard quality units in each FMR area. In addition, all rents subsidized under the HCV program must meet reasonable rent standards.
As of October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58870), HUD required FMRs to be set at the 50th percentile for areas where HUD determined higher FMRs were needed to help families assisted under certain HUD programs find and lease decent and affordable housing. On November 16, 2016 (81 FR 80567), HUD published a Final Rule entitled “Establishing a More Effective Fair Market Rent System; Using Small Area Fair Market Rents in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Instead of the Current 50th Percentile FMRs” (Small Area FMR final rule), with an effective date of January 17, 2017. The Small Area FMR final rule eliminates the 50th percentile FMR provisions in the FMR regulations (24 CFR 888.113)
The following areas completed their 3 years of 50th percentile eligibility in FY 2017 and will revert to 40th percentile FMR status in FY 2018:
The following is a list of FMR areas that retain 50th percentile FMRs for FY 2018, along with the year that they will revert to 40th percentile status:
Section 8(c)(1) of the USHA, as amended by HOTMA (Pub. L. 114-201, approved July 29, 2016), requires the Secretary of HUD to publish FMRs not less than annually. Section 8(c)(1)(A) states that each FMR “shall be adjusted to be effective on October 1 of each year to reflect changes, based on the most recent available data trended so the rentals will be current for the year to which they apply . . .” Section 8(c)(1)(B) requires that HUD publish, not less than annually, new FMRs on the World Wide Web or in any other manner specified by the Secretary, and that HUD must also notify the public of when it publishes FMRs by
In addition, Section 8(c)(1)(B) of the USHA, as amended by HOTMA, requires that HUD publish for comment in the
In the Changes to Methodology notice, HUD proposed several methodological changes in the way that HUD calculates FMRs. Most of the changes focused on the way HUD assessed the statistical quality of the ACS estimates or on using as much local information as possible when calculating FMRs. The proposed changes were as follows:
• Add a “number of observations” criterion to the existing margin of error criterion when assessing the statistical reliability of ACS estimates.
• Use “all-bedroom” rents when calculating the recent mover factor when the two-bedroom rents are not statistically reliable before moving to a larger encompassing geography's two-bedroom recent mover rents for this factor.
• Calculate Small Area FMRs directly, rather than using the ratio method, when statistically reliable information at the ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) level is available. The ratio method would still be used when statically reliable data was not available for individual ZCTAs.
• Link ZCTAs to the smallest metropolitan area available as their parent FMR area for the ratio method rather than defaulting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—defined metropolitan area as the parent. This would allow HUD to take advantage of the differing recent mover factors available across subdivided OMB metropolitan areas (areas labeled as HUD Metro FMR Areas).
In response to the Changes to Methodology notice, a total of 22 individual comments were received and posted on the
This section provides a brief overview of how HUD computes the FY 2018 FMRs. For complete information on how HUD determines FMR areas, and on how HUD derives each area's FMRs, see the online documentation at
In conjunction with the use of 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data, HUD has implemented the following geography changes: Effective May 1, 2015, Shannon County, South Dakota (state code 46, county code 113) changed its name to Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota (state code 46, county code 102) and effective July 1, 2015, the Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska (state code 02, county code 270) changed its name to the Kusilvak Census Area, Alaska (state code 02, county code 158).
For FY 2018 FMRs, HUD updates the base rents using the U.S. Census Bureau's 5-year ACS data collected between 2011 through 2015 (released in December of 2016). One of the changes proposed in the Changes to Methodology notice and adopted in this notice addresses the statistical reliability of the ACS data used in the FMR calculations. In prior years, HUD used ACS estimates where the margin of error of the estimate is less than half the size of the estimate itself. For FY 2018 FMRs, HUD now pairs this “margin of error” test with an additional test based on the number of survey observations supporting the estimate. The Census Bureau does not provide HUD with an exact count of the number of observations supporting the ACS estimate; rather, the Census Bureau provides HUD with categories of the number of survey responses underlying the estimate, including whether the estimate is based on more than 100 observations. Using these categories, HUD requires that, in addition to the “margin of error” test, ACS rent estimates must be based on at least 100 observations in order to be used as base rents.
For areas in which the 5-year ACS data for two-bedroom, standard quality gross rents do not pass the statistical reliability tests (
HUD has updated base rents each year based on new 5-year data since FY 2012, for which HUD used 2005-2009 ACS data. HUD is also updating base rents for Puerto Rico FMRs using the 2011-2015 Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS); HUD first updated the Puerto Rico base rents in FY 2014 based on 2007-2011 PRCS data collected through the ACS program.
HUD historically based FMRs on gross rents for recent movers (those who have moved into their current residence in the last 24 months) measured directly. However, due to the way Census constructs the 5-year ACS data, HUD developed a new method for calculating recent-mover FMRs in FY 2012, which HUD continues to use in FY 2018: HUD assigns all areas a base rent, which is the two-bedroom standard quality 5-year gross rent estimate from the ACS; then, because HUD's regulations mandate that FMRs must be published as recent mover gross rents, HUD applies a recent mover factor to the base rents assigned from the 5-year ACS data.
Following the assignment of the standard quality two-bedroom rent described above, HUD applies a recent mover factor to these rents. HUD calculates the recent mover factor as the change between the 5-year 2011-2015 standard quality two-bedroom gross rent and the 1 year 2015 recent mover gross rent for the recent mover factor area. HUD does not allow recent mover factors to lower the standard quality base rent; therefore, if the 5-year standard quality rent is larger than the comparable 1-year recent mover rent, the recent mover factor is set to 1.
The calculation of the recent mover factor for FY 2018 contains several modifications that were proposed in the Changes to Methodology notice, and are now being adopted. The first change is the addition of a new test to determine the statistical reliability of the 1-year ACS recent mover data. The margin of error test is now paired with a count of observations test, similar to the test used for base rent data. Therefore, in order for a recent mover gross rent estimate to be
The second change incorporated into the FY 2018 recent mover factor calculation concerns the data used when an FMR area does not have statistically reliable two-bedroom recent mover data. In this circumstance, if the “all-bedroom”
However, where statistically reliable “all-bedroom” data is not available, HUD will continue to base FMR areas' recent mover factors on larger geographic areas, following the same procedures as in FY 2017: HUD tests data from differently sized geographic areas in the following order (from small to large), and bases the recent mover factor on the first statistically reliable sample size.
• For metropolitan areas that are subareas of larger metropolitan areas, the order is the FMR area, metropolitan area, aggregated metropolitan parts of the state, and state.
• For metropolitan areas that are not divided, the order is the FMR area, aggregated metropolitan parts of the state, and state.
• In non-metropolitan areas, the order is the FMR area, aggregated non-metropolitan parts of the state, and state.
The process for calculating each area's recent mover factor is detailed in the FY 2018 FMR documentation system available at:
HUD calculated base rents for the insular areas using the 2010 decennial census of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands beginning with the FY 2016 FMRs.
HUD does not use ACS data to establish the base rent or recent mover factor for 12 areas where the FY 2018 FMR was adjusted based on survey data:
• Survey data collected in 2014 is used to adjust the FMRs for three non-metropolitan counties in Vermont (Bennington County, Windham County and Windsor County).
• Survey data from 2015 is used to adjust the FMRs for Portland, OR and Oakland, CA.
• Survey data from 2016 is used to adjust the FMRs for Burlington, VT; Kauai County, HI; Maui County, HI; San Francisco, CA; Portland, ME; and Vallejo-Fairfield, CA.
• Survey data from 2017 is used to adjust the FMR for Santa Rosa, CA.
For larger metropolitan areas that have valid ACS one-year recent mover data, survey data may not be any older than the midpoint of the calendar year for the ACS one-year data. Since the ACS one-year data used for the FY 2018 FMRs is from 2015, larger areas may not use survey data collected before June 1, 2015 for the FY 2018 FMRs. Smaller areas without 1-year ACS data, including the above counties in Vermont, may continue to use local survey data until the mid-point of the 5-year ACS data is more recent than the local survey.
HUD updates the ACS-based “as of” 2015 rent through the end of 2016 using the annual change in gross rents measured through the CPI from 2015 to 2016 (CPI update factor). As in previous years, HUD uses local CPI data coupled with Consumer Expenditure Survey data for FMR areas with at least 75 percent of their population within Class A metropolitan areas covered by local CPI data. In FMR areas that don't meet this criterion, including Class B and C size metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas, HUD uses CPI data aggregated at the Census region level. Additionally, HUD is using CPI data collected locally in Puerto Rico as the basis for CPI adjustments from 2015 to 2016 for all Puerto Rico FMR areas.
Following the application of the appropriate CPI update factor, HUD trends the gross rent estimate from 2016 to FY 2018 using a national forecast of expected growth in gross rents. This forecast produces “as of” FY 2018 FMRs.
HUD updates the bedroom ratios used in the calculation of FMRs annually. The bedroom ratios which HUD used in the calculation of FY 2018 FMRs have been updated using average data from three five-year ACS data series (2009-2013, 2010-2014, and 2011-2015). The bedroom ratio methodology used in this update is unchanged from previous calculations using 2000 Census data. HUD only uses estimates with a margin of error ratio of less than 50 percent. If an area does not have reliable estimates in at least two of the previous three ACS releases, bedroom ratios for the area's larger parent geography are used.
HUD uses two-bedroom units for its primary calculation of FMR estimates. This is generally the most common size of rental unit and, therefore, the most reliable to survey and analyze. After estimating two-bedroom FMRs, HUD calculates bedroom ratios for each FMR area which relate the prices of smaller and larger units to the cost of two-bedroom units. To prevent illogical results in particular FMR areas, HUD establishes bedroom interval ranges which set upper and lower limits for bedroom ratios nationwide, based on an analysis of the range of such intervals for all areas with large enough samples to permit accurate bedroom ratio determinations.
In the calculation of FY 2018 FMR estimates, HUD set the bedroom interval ranges as follows: Efficiency FMRs are constrained to fall between 0.64 and 0.85 of the two-bedroom FMR; one-bedroom FMRs must be between 0.75 and 0.87 of the two-bedroom FMR; three-bedroom FMRs (prior to the adjustments described below) must be between 1.15 and 1.34 of the two-bedroom FMR; and four-bedroom FMRs (again, prior to adjustment) must be between 1.26 and 1.64 of the two-bedroom FMR. Given that these interval ranges partially overlap across bedroom sizes, HUD further adjusts bedroom ratios for a given FMR area, if necessary, to ensure that higher bedroom-count units have higher rents than lower bedroom-count units within that area. The bedroom ratios for Puerto Rico follow these constraints.
HUD also further adjusts the rents for three-bedroom and larger units to reflect HUD's policy to set higher rents for these units.
HUD derives FMRs for units with more than four bedrooms by adding 15 percent to the four-bedroom FMR for each extra bedroom. For example, the FMR for a five-bedroom unit is 1.15 times the four-bedroom FMR, and the FMR for a six-bedroom unit is 1.30 times the four-bedroom FMR. Similarly, HUD derives FMRs for single-room occupancy units by subtracting 25 percent from the zero-bedroom FMR (
Within the Small Area FMR final rule published on November 16, 2016, HUD amended 24 CFR 888.113 to include a limit on the amount that FMRs may annually decrease. The current year's FMRs resulting from the application of the bedroom ratios, as discussed in section (E) above, may be no less than 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs for units with the same number of bedrooms. Accordingly, if the current year's FMRs are less than 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs as calculated by the above methodology, HUD sets the current year's FMRs equal to 90 percent of the prior year's FMRs. For areas using Small Area FMRs in the administration of their voucher programs (
HOTMA changed the manner in which vouchers are used to subsidize manufactured home units. Please see HUD's Notice from January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5458) for more detailed information concerning the use of vouchers for manufactured home units. Due to the nature of these changes, HUD will no longer be publishing exception rents for Manufactured Home Space pad rents.
PHAs in the Dallas, TX HUD Metro FMR Area (HMFA)
As proposed in the Changes to Methodology notice, HUD is also making changes in the manner in which FY 2018 Small Area FMRs are calculated. In order to use more local data, HUD is calculating Small Area FMRs directly from the standard quality gross rents provided to HUD by the Census Bureau for ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs), when such data is statistically reliable, instead of using the current rent ratio calculation. The ZCTA two-bedroom equivalent 40th percentile gross rent is analogous to the standard quality base rents set for metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan counties. For each ZCTA with statistically reliable gross rent estimates, using the expanded test of statistical reliability noted previously in this notice (
For ZCTAs without usable gross rent data by bedroom size, HUD will continue to calculate Small Area FMRs using the rent ratio method similar to that HUD has used in past Small Area FMR calculations. To calculate Small Area FMRs using a rent ratio, HUD divides the median gross rent across all bedrooms for the small area (a ZIP code) by the similar median gross rent for the metropolitan area of the ZIP code. In small areas where the median gross rent is not statistically reliable, HUD substitutes the median gross rent for the county containing the ZIP code in the numerator of the rent ratio calculation. HUD multiplies this rent ratio by the current two-bedroom rent for the metropolitan area containing the small area to generate the current year two-bedroom rent for the small area.
Similar to other changes described in this notice, HUD is changing the linkage between the small area and its containing metropolitan area as proposed in the May 26, 2017
As in FY 2017, HUD continues to use a rolling average of ACS data in calculating the Small Area FMR rent ratios. HUD believes coupling the most current data with previous year's data minimizes excessive year-to-year variability in Small Area FMR rent ratios due to sampling variance. Therefore, for FY 2018 Small Area FMRs, HUD has updated the rent ratios to use an average of the rent ratios calculated from the 2009-2013, 2010-2014, and 2011-2015 5-year ACS estimates.
HUD will continue to accept public comments on the methods HUD uses to calculate FY 2018 FMRs, including
PHAs or other interested parties interested in requesting HUD reevaluation of its FY 2018 FMRs, as provided for under section 8(c)(1)(B) of USHA, must follow the following procedures:
1. By the end of the comment period, such reevaluation requests must be submitted publicly through
2. In order for a reevaluation to occur, the requestor(s) must supply HUD with data more recent than the 2015 American Community Survey data used in the calculation of the FY 2018 FMRs. HUD requires data on gross rents paid in the FMR area for standard quality rental housing units. The data delivered must be sufficient for HUD to calculate a 40th and 50th percentile two-bedroom rent. Should this type of data not be available, requestors may gather this information using the survey guidance available at
3. On or about October 3, HUD will post a list, at
4. Data for reevaluations must be supplied to HUD no later than Friday January 5, 2018. On Monday January 8, 2018, HUD will post at
5. HUD will use the data delivered by January 5, 2018 to reevaluate the FMRs and following the reevaluation, will post revised FMRs with an accompanying
6. Any data supporting a change in FMRs supplied after January 5, 2018 will be incorporated into FY 2019 FMRs.
7. PHAs operating in areas where the calculated FMR is lower than the published FMR (
Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Peter B. Kahn of the Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research at HUD headquarters, 451 7th Street SW., Room 8208, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2409 (this is not a toll-free number), or they may be reached at
For small metropolitan areas without one-year ACS data and non-metropolitan counties, HUD has developed a method using mail surveys that is discussed on the FMR Web page:
While HUD has not developed a specific method for mail surveys in areas with 1-year ACS data, HUD would apply the standard established for Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) telephone rent surveys. HUD will evaluate these survey results to determine whether they would establish a new FMR statistically different from the current FMR, which means that the survey confidence interval must not include the FMR. The survey should collect results based on 200 one-bedroom and two-bedroom eligible recent mover units to provide a small enough confidence interval for significant results in large market mail surveys. Areas with statistically reliable 1-year ACS data are not considered to be good candidates for local surveys due to the size and completeness of the ACS process.
Other survey methods are acceptable in providing data to support reevaluation requests if the survey method can provide statistically reliable, unbiased estimates of the gross rent of the entire FMR area. In general, recommendations for FMR changes and supporting data must reflect the rent levels that exist within the entire FMR area and should be statistically reliable.
PHAs in non-metropolitan areas may, in certain circumstances, conduct surveys of groups of counties. HUD must approve all county-grouped surveys in advance. PHAs are cautioned that the resulting FMRs may not be identical for the counties surveyed; each individual FMR area will have a separate FMR based on the relationship of rents in that area to the combined rents in the cluster of FMR areas. In addition, PHAs are advised that in counties where FMRs are based on the combined rents in the cluster of FMR areas, HUD will not revise their FMRs unless the grouped survey results show a revised FMR statistically different from the combined rent level.
Survey samples should preferably be randomly drawn from a complete list of rental units for the FMR area. If this is not feasible, the selected sample must be drawn to be statistically representative of the entire rental housing stock of the FMR area. Surveys must include units at all rent levels and be representative by structure type (including single-family, duplex, and other small rental properties), age of housing unit, and geographic location. The current 5-year ACS data should be used as a means of verifying if a sample is representative of the FMR area's rental housing stock.
A PHA or contractor that cannot obtain the recommended number of sample responses after reasonable efforts should consult with HUD before abandoning its survey; in such situations, HUD may find it appropriate to relax normal sample size requirements.
HUD has developed guidance on how to provide data-supported comments on Small Area FMRs using HUD's special tabulations of the distribution of gross rents by bedroom unit size for ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. This guidance is available at
As stated earlier in this notice, HUD is required to use the most recent data
As noted above, HUD received 22 comments on the Changes to Methodology notice. Most of the comments that addressed the proposed methodology changes responded favorably to the changes. Commenters choosing to address these methodological changes were “cautiously optimistic” about these changes. However, one commenter specifically opposed the use of “all bedroom” rents for the recent mover factor while another commenter specifically supports the use of “all bedroom” recent mover rents.
Based on the limited comments received on the proposed methodology changes, which are generally favorable to HUD's proposed changes, HUD has decided to implement each of the proposed methodological changes in the calculation of the FY 2018 FMRs.
The following summaries of comments and responses also include responses to other comments regarding the calculation of FMRs that were not responsive to the specific methodology changes.
HUD augments the data on gross rents paid collected through the ACS by the change in gross rents measured through the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which captures the change in gross rents between 2015 and 2016. In order to measure the change in gross rents, HUD constructs a gross rent index using 2 CPI components—Rent of Primary Residence, and Housing—Fuels and Utilities. These gross rent change factors are calculated for local metropolitan areas and where metropolitan data does not exist, HUD uses data available at the Census regional level. The local data utilized in this process covers approximately 46 percent of the national population.
Finally, for FY 2018, HUD continues to use HUD's nationwide forecast of expected growth in gross rents. HUD continues to explore forecasting expected changes in gross rents for metropolitan areas; however, HUD has yet to generate forecasts that consistently provide better estimates across all localities. While HUD continues to improve the quality of its local forecasts, HUD will explore if other sources of data provide more timely update factors than those calculated from the CPI.
HUD has carefully considered the comments concerning HUD conducting local rent surveys. The Federal Government currently makes a significant investment in collecting socio-economic data through the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. Since the ACS is the replacement for the decennial census long form survey, households receiving the survey are compelled to complete it; consequently, the ACS has far superior response rates and quality controls embedded in the data processing than HUD could achieve in any survey program it could construct. Therefore, HUD believes that is a waste of Federal resources to duplicate the efforts of the ACS.
This Notice involves the establishment of FMR schedules, which do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this Notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent Schedules, which will not be codified in 24 CFR part 888, are available at
a. Metropolitan Areas—Most FMRs are market-wide rent estimates that are intended to provide housing opportunities throughout the geographic area in which rental-housing units are in direct competition. HUD is using the metropolitan CBSAs, which are made up of one or more counties, as defined by OMB, with some modifications. HUD is generally assigning separate FMRs to the component counties of CBSA Micropolitan Areas.
b. Modifications to OMB Definitions—Following OMB guidance, the estimation procedure for the FY 2018 FMRs incorporates the OMB definitions of metropolitan areas based on the CBSA standards as implemented with 2000 Census data and updated by the 2010 Census in February 28, 2013. The adjustments made to the 2000 definitions to separate subparts of these areas where FMRs or median incomes would otherwise change significantly are continued. To follow HUD's policy of providing FMRs at the smallest possible area of geography, no counties were added to existing metropolitan areas due to recent updates in metropolitan area definitions. All counties added to metropolitan areas by the CBSA will still be treated as separate counties for FMR calculations; that is, the rents from a county that is a sub-area will not be used in the remaining metropolitan sub-area rent determination. All metropolitan areas that have been subdivided by HUD will use ACS data which conforms to HUD's area definition if statistically reliable information exists. If statistically reliable data for the HUD defined area is not available, HUD uses information from larger encompassing geographies, as described elsewhere in this notice.
The specific counties and New England towns and cities within each state in MSAs and HMFAs were not changed by the February 28, 2013 OMB metropolitan area definitions. These areas are listed in Schedule B, available online at
Schedule B, available at
a. The FMR areas in the online Schedule B are listed alphabetically by metropolitan FMR area and by non-metropolitan county within each state and are available at
b. The constituent counties (and New England towns and cities) included in each metropolitan FMR area are listed immediately following the listings of the FMR dollar amounts. All constituent parts of a metropolitan FMR area that
c. Two non-metropolitan counties are listed alphabetically on each line of the non-metropolitan county listings.
d. The New England towns and cities included in a non-metropolitan county are listed immediately following the county name.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.
We must receive any written comments on or before October 2, 2017.
Send written comments by U.S. Mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to
Carlita Payne, (612) 713-5343.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the first meeting of the Royalty Policy Committee (Committee). This meeting is open to the public.
The Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, in Washington, DC, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Committee meeting will be held in the South Penthouse of the Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building located at 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. Members of the public may attend in person or view documents and presentations under discussion via WebEx at
Ms. Kim Oliver, Office of Natural Resources Revenue at (202) 513-0370 or email to
The U.S. Department of the Interior established the Committee on April 21, 2017, under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior and regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Committee is to ensure that the public receives the full value of the natural resources produced from Federal lands. The duties of the Committee are solely advisory in nature. More information about the Committee, including its charter, is available at
Whenever possible, we encourage those participating by telephone to gather in conference rooms in order to share teleconference lines. Please plan to dial into the meeting and/or log into WebEx at least 10-15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time in order to avoid possible technical difficulties. We will accommodate individuals with special needs whenever possible. If you require special assistance (such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired), please notify Interior staff in advance of the meeting at 202-513-0370 or email to
We will post the minutes from these proceedings on the Committee Web site at
Members of the public may choose to make a public comment during the designated time for public comments. Members of the public may also choose to submit written comments by mailing them to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Attention: RPC, 1849 C Street NW., MS 5134, Washington DC 20240. You also can email your written comments for Kim Oliver to
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is announcing a public meeting of the
September 28, 2017, at 10 a.m.
Glenn Olds Hall Conference Room, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska.
Dr. Philip Johnson, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 “C” Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, (907) 271-5011.
The EVOS Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations, all interested parties are hereby invited to participate with Bridger Coal Company on a pro rata cost-sharing basis, in its program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of America in Sweetwater County, Wyoming.
This notice of invitation will be published in the
Copies of the exploration plan are available for review during normal business hours in the following offices (serialized under number WYW185631): BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; and, BLM, Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901. The written notice should be sent to the following addresses: Bridger Coal Company, c/o Interwest Mining Co., Attn: Scott M. Child, 1407 W. North Temple, #310, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 and the BLM Wyoming State Office, Branch of Solid Minerals, Attn: Jackie Madson, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
Jackie Madson, Land Law Examiner, at 307-775-6258 or
Bridger Coal Company has applied to the BLM for a coal exploration license on public land to the northwest of the Jim Bridger power plant and underground coal mine. The purpose of the exploration program is to obtain structural and quality information on the coal. The BLM regulations at 43 CFR 3410.2 require the publication of an invitation to participate in the coal exploration in the
The area described contains 1,560.85 acres.
The proposed exploration program is fully described and will be conducted pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the BLM.
43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle Mountain, Nevada, has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and is announcing the beginning of the public comment period to solicit public comments on the Draft EIS. Newmont USA Limited (Newmont) is proposing to expand its existing Phoenix Mine, which is located approximately 12 miles southwest of the Town of Battle Mountain in Lander County, Nevada. The Greater Phoenix Project (Project) includes expanding the life of the Phoenix mine from 2040 to 2063; expanding the boundary of the mine by 10,611 acres from 8,228 acres to 18,839 acres; and increasing surface disturbance by 3,497 acres, from 8,374 to 11,871 acres, of which 5,896 acres involve public lands and 5,975 acres are private land.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Mount Lewis Field Office.
Christine Gabriel, Project Manager; telephone: 775-635-4000; address: 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820; or email:
Newmont is proposing to expand its existing operations in the Phoenix Mine area, located approximately 12 miles southwest of the Town of Battle
Newmont is proposing to expand the mine—called the Greater Phoenix Project—by amending its current Phoenix Mine Plan of Operations. Within the expanded area, surface disturbance would increase by 3,497 acres, from 8,374 to 11,871 acres, which includes 5,896 acres located on public lands administered by the BLM Mount Lewis Field Office. If the BLM approves an amendment to the authorized Plan of Operations with its existing permits, mining activities at the Phoenix Mine would be extended approximately 24 years. Active closure and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend approximately 13 years beyond the operational phase. Additionally, more than 600 years of post-closure monitoring would follow final reclamation.
The specific details of the Proposed Project include the following: Extension of mine life from 2040 to 2063; expansion of the Plan of Operations boundary by 10,611 acres, from 8,228 acres to 18,839 acres, of which 10,132 acres are BLM-managed public lands; expansion of the Phoenix Pit area through consolidation of existing pit areas and by increasing the depth of the pit by 380 feet, from 4,990 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to a lower depth of 4,610 feet amsl; expansion of the Natomas Waste Rock Facility by 347 acres, from 997 acres to 1,344 acres; expansion of the Phoenix TSF by 1,801 acres, from 1,396 acres to 3,197 acres; expansion of the Phoenix HLC by 79 acres, from 536 acres to 615 acres; expansion of the clay soil borrow area by 819 acres, from 469 acres to 1,288 acres; development of an additional soil borrow area (483 acres); modification of the mine closure approach (including the management of pit water through treatment to meet applicable water quality standards and subsequently put to beneficial use in perpetuity); and realignment of Buffalo Valley Road, as well as realignment of a service power line, fiber optic line, and natural gas pipeline. Under the Proposed Project, four existing rights-of-way would require amendments to existing FLPMA grants.
The Draft EIS, through scoping, has identified and analyzed impacts to the following resource areas: Water resources (including surface water, groundwater, and geochemistry); air quality; vegetation resources (including noxious weed species and special status species); wildlife (including migratory birds and special status species-Greater sage-grouse); livestock grazing management; land use and access; visual resources; cultural resources; Native American cultural concerns; geological resources (including minerals and soils); paleontological resources; recreation; social and economic values; hazardous materials; wetland and riparian zones. Not including existing disturbance, the Proposed Action would impact Greater sage-grouse (GSG) habitat including 200.1 acres in Priority Habitat Management Area; 1,900.1 acres in General Habitat Management Area; 1,684.5 acres in Other Habitat Management Area; and 10,165.5 acres in Non-Habitat Area. Approximately half of the GSG habitat disturbance would be on private land.
The Draft EIS describes and analyzes the Proposed Project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on all affected resources. In addition to the Proposed Project, three alternatives were analyzed, including the Enhanced/Mechanical Evaporation Cell Alternative, Treat Water for Agricultural Cropping on Private Land Alternative, and the No Action Alternative.
On September 29, 2015, a Notice of Intent was published in the
The BLM has utilized and coordinated the NEPA scoping and comment process to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), and the agency continues to do so. The information about historical and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the Proposed Project has assisted the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and the NHPA.
The BLM has consulted and continues to consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts to Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources have been analyzed in the Draft EIS. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the Proposed Project, are invited to participate in the comment process.
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.
40 CFR 1501.7.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before July 29, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by September 18, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 5, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by September 18, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 5, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
Additional documentation has been received for the following resources:,
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to, the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports, listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
United States International Trade Commission.
September 7, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-539-C (Fourth Review) (Uranium from Russia). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by September 20, 2017.
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium in granular form from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Date of institution is September 1, 2017. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 2, 2017. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 13, 2017.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193) Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post-employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 17-5-395, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Date of institution is September 1, 2017. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is October 2, 2017. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by November 13, 2017.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 17-5-394, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3-5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-587 and 731-TA-1385-1386 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan, provided for in subheading 8108.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of Kazakhstan. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case
August 24, 2017.
Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On August 25, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in the lawsuit entitled
The Consent Decree resolves claims against PAR Industrial Corporation (“PAR” or “the Defendant”) arising under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act relating to the Par Industries, Inc. Superfund Site, located in Nitro, Putnam County, West Virginia. Under the Consent Decree, Defendant will endeavor to sell the majority of the property on which the Site is located and distribute the proceeds of any sale(s) between the United States and
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $40.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $10.50.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
30-day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until October 2, 2017.
If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812 or sent to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required please contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Notice of Alleged Safety or Health Hazards,” 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 October 2, 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-OSHA, 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 Notice of Alleged Safety or Health Hazards (Form OSHA-7) information collection. Respondents use Form OSHA-7 to report unhealthful and/or unsafe conditions in the workplace to the OSHA. The OSHA uses this information to evaluate the alleged hazards and to schedule an inspection. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sections 2(b)(10) and 8(f) authorize 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).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On August 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 2, 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-OSHA, 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 Underground Construction Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1926.800. The requirements apply to an Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer engaged in underground construction. The information collections the DOL seeks to extend by this ICR include: (1) Posting various warning signs and notices, (2) developing and maintaining certification inspection records for hoists, and (3) developing and maintaining records of air quality tests. OSH Act sections 6(b)(7) and 8 authorize 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).
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Family and Medical Leave Act, Wave 4 Surveys,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 2, 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
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Wave 4 Surveys information collection to study the FMLA by conducting a fourth round of nationally representative surveys of employees and employers covered by the provisions of the FMLA. The survey findings will update and expand upon the knowledge gained from the earlier survey waves. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, division H, title I, section 107 authorizes this information collection.
This proposed 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 if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Occupational Safety and Health Administration Grantee Quarterly Progress Report,” 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 October 2, 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-OSHA, 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 OSHA Grantee Quarterly Progress Report, Form OSHA-171, information collection. The OSHA uses Form OSHA-171 to collect information concerning activities conducted during the quarter by grantees under the Susan Harwood Training Grants Program. This information is used to monitor progress to determine whether the organization is using Federal grant funds as specified in its grant application. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 section 21(c) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally
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.
On August 31, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Notice of Recurrence,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 2, 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-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:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Notice of Recurrence, Form CA-2a, information collection. Form CA-2a is used to claim reimbursement of wage loss or medical treatment resulting from the recurrence of a work-related injury while federally employed. The information is necessary to ensure accurate benefits payment. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because of a revised accommodation statement. The Federal Employees' Compensation Act authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of
• 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).
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Notice announcing commencement of proceeding with request for Petitions to Participate.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce the commencement of a proceeding to determine the distribution of the digital audio recording technology royalty fees in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 Musical Works Funds. The Judges also announce the date by which a party who wishes to participate in this proceeding must file its Petition to Participate and the accompanying filing fee, if applicable.
Petitions to Participate and the filing fee, if applicable, are due no later than October 2, 2017.
Interested claimants must submit petitions to participate and the filing fee, if applicable, identified by docket number 2013-6 CRB DD 2009-2011 (MWF), by any of the following methods:
Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, by phone at (202) 707-7658 or by email at
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (“AHRA”), Public Law 102-563, requires manufacturers and importers to pay royalties on digital audio recording devices and media that are distributed in the United States. 17 U.S.C. 1003. These royalties are deposited with the Copyright Office for further distribution to eligible claimants. 17 U.S.C. 1005, 1007. Royalties are divided into two funds: The Sound Recordings Fund (66
Distribution of these fees may occur in one of two ways. The interested copyright parties within each subfund may negotiate the terms of a settlement as to the division of royalty funds. If, after any such agreements, funds remain in dispute, the Copyright Royalty Judges may conduct a proceeding to determine the distribution of the royalties that remain in controversy in each subfund. 17 U.S.C. 1006(c) & 1007(c).
On February 4, 2014, the Judges issued an order granting certain claimants' (
On March 16, 2017, the settling claimants
By this notice, the Judges grant the settling claimants' Motion and announce the commencement of a proceeding to determine the proper distribution of DART Musical Works Funds (both the Musical Publishers Subfund and the Writers Subfund) for royalty years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The Judges granted the settling claimants' request for partial distribution pursuant to Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act, which authorizes the Judges to order partial distributions notwithstanding the existence of ongoing controversies. Consequently, all DART Musical Works funds for royalty years 2009, 2010, and 2011 remain in dispute, notwithstanding the 95% distribution to the settling claimants. All settling claimants agreed, at the time of the partial distribution, to repay any potential overpayment.
Consistent with 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(8), the Judges determine that, for the reasons stated above, a controversy exists with respect to the distribution of the 2009, 2010, and 2011 DART Musical Works Funds royalties for the Music Publishers Subfund and the Writers Subfund.
Petitions to Participate must provide all of the information required by 37 CFR 351.1(b)(2). Participants also must identify by year each subfund in the Musical Works Fund to which they are asserting a claim (
Any participant that is an individual may represent herself or himself. All other participants must be represented by counsel. In accordance with 37 CFR 350.2 (Representation), only attorneys who are members of the bar in one or more states or the District of Columbia and in good standing will be allowed to represent parties before the Copyright Royalty Judges. The Judges will address further procedural matters, including scheduling, after Petitions to Participate have been filed.
In accordance with Section 803(b)(5)(B) of the Copyright Act, the Judges find it appropriate to conduct a paper proceeding in this matter in light of the relatively modest amount of royalties in dispute and the anticipated small number of non-settling claimants. In such proceedings, the Judges determine issues solely on the basis of the filing of a written direct statement by each participant, a response of an opposing participant, and one additional response from the participant. 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(5). Any party wishing to comment on the Judges' intention to conduct a paper proceeding should include such comments in its Petition to Participate.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
Section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies countries that are “candidate countries” for Millennium Challenge Account assistance during FY 2018. The report is set forth in full below.
This report to Congress is provided in accordance with section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 7701, 7707(a) (the Act).
The Act authorizes the provision of assistance for global development through the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) for countries that enter into a Millennium Challenge Compact with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries to achieve lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires MCC to take a number of steps in selecting countries with which MCC will seek to enter into a compact, including determining the countries that will be eligible countries for fiscal year (FY) 2018 based on (a) a country's demonstrated commitment to (i) just and democratic governance, (ii) economic freedom, and (iii) investments in its people; and (b) the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, and (c) the availability of funds to MCC. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and the publication of notices in the
The countries that are “candidate countries” for FY 2018 based on their per capita income levels and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law and countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance (section 608(a) of the Act);
The criteria and methodology that the MCC Board of Directors (Board) will use to measure and evaluate the relative policy performance of the “candidate countries” consistent with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) of section 607 of the Act in order to determine “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (section 608(b) of the Act); and
The list of countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for FY 2018, identification of such countries with which the Board will seek to enter into compacts, and a justification for such eligibility
This report is the first of three required reports listed above.
The Act requires the identification of all countries that are candidate countries for FY 2018 and the identification of all countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance. Under the terms of the Act, sections 606(a) and (b) set forth the two income tests countries must satisfy to be candidate countries.
Under the redefined categories, a country will be a candidate country for FY 2018 if it:
Meets one of the following tests:
Has a per capita income that is not greater than the World Bank's lower middle income country threshold for such fiscal year ($3,955 gross national income per capita for FY 2018); and is among the 75 lowest per capita income countries, as identified by the World Bank; or
Has a per capita income that is not greater than the World Bank's lower middle income country threshold for such fiscal year ($3,955 gross national income per capita for FY 2018); but is
Is not ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the Foreign Assistance Act), by reason of the application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law.
Due to the provisions requiring countries to retain their former income classification for three fiscal years, changes from the low income to lower middle income categories or vice versa for FY 2018 will go into effect for FY 2021. Countries transitioning to the upper middle income category do not remain in the candidate pool.
Pursuant to section 606(c) of the Act, the Board identified the following countries as candidate countries under the Act for FY 2018. In so doing, the Board referred to the prohibitions on assistance to countries for FY 2017 under the FY 2017 SFOAA.
Countries that would be considered candidate countries for FY 2018, but are ineligible to receive United States economic assistance under part I of the
Bolivia is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance pursuant to section 706(3) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-228), regarding adherence to obligations under international counternarcotics agreements and other counternarcotics measures.
Burma is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance, absent special authority, because of concerns relative to its record on human rights.
Eritrea is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance, including due to its status as a Tier 3 country under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7101
North Korea is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance, including pursuant to section 7007 of the FY 2017 SFOAA, which prohibits direct assistance to the government of North Korea.
South Sudan is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance pursuant to section 7042(i)(2) of the FY 2017 SFOAA, which prohibits, with limited exceptions, assistance to the central government of South Sudan until the Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that such government is taking effective steps to end hostilities and pursue good faith negotiations for a political settlement of the internal conflict; provide access for humanitarian organizations; end the recruitment and use of child soldiers; protect freedoms of expression, association, and assembly; reduce corruption related to the extraction and sale of oil and gas; establish democratic institutions; establish accountable military and police forces under civilian authority; and investigate and prosecute individuals credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights, including at the Terrain compound in Juba, South Sudan on July 11, 2016.
Sudan is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance, including pursuant to section 7042(j) of the FY 2017 SFOAA, which prohibits (with limited exceptions) assistance to the government of Sudan.
Syria is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance, including pursuant to section 7007 of the FY 2017 SFOAA, which prohibits direct assistance to the government of Syria.
Zimbabwe is ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance, including pursuant to section 7042(k)(2) of the FY 2017 SFOAA, which prohibits (with limited exceptions) assistance for the central government of Zimbabwe unless the Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that the rule of law has been restored, including respect for ownership and title to property, and freedoms of expression, association, and assembly.
Countries identified above as candidate countries, as well as countries that would be considered candidate countries but for the applicability of legal provisions that prohibit U.S. economic assistance, may be the subject of future statutory restrictions or determinations, or changed country circumstances, that affect their legal eligibility for assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law for FY 2018.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on the “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments are due by October 31, 2017.
Send comments to: Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone (202) 682-5424 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5677, or send via email to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melissa Menzer, 202-682-5548,
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through posting on a government Web site. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered is not used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered yields qualitative information; the collections are not designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request approval for the collection of research and development data through the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Program survey. In accordance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by October 31, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; or send email to
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NSF, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the NSF's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The primary goals of the ATE program are to (1) educate highly qualified science and engineering technicians to meet workforce demands in strategic advanced technology fields; (2) improve the technical skills and general science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) preparation of these technicians and the educators who prepare them at the secondary (grades 7-12) and undergraduate levels; and (3) increase the capacity of institutions for advanced technician education.
To ensure that the ATE program accomplishes its goals of producing more highly qualified science and engineering technicians and improving the skills and knowledge of educators and technicians who train them, it is important to consistently assess and improve the program's activities. Therefore, this evaluation aims to gather information on the following research questions:
1. How has ATE advanced the mission of NSF between FY 2007 and FY 2015?
2. How do individual awardees implement student-focused activities at their ATE projects/centers?
3. What are the educational outcomes of students who have participated in ATE-funded activities?
4. How do individual awardees implement faculty-focused activities at their ATE projects/centers?
5. How have program-supported activities enhanced faculty and teacher knowledge/skills/networks, especially as they relate to building capacity at institutions to address workforce needs in advanced technology fields?
6. How do grantees develop partnerships with industry to support student and faculty/teacher development?
7. How have awardee partnerships with business and industry enhanced student educational training and workforce outcomes?
Because of the nature of the ATE program and the type of information being sought, a mixed methods evaluation design will be employed. The evaluation will collect data using web surveys and qualitative methods (consisting of semi-structured interviews and focus groups), as well as draw on data from extant sources. The study components include: a descriptive implementation study that describes project implementation; a relational study of associations between project/center and student characteristics on student outcomes; and a comparative study using the U.S. Department of Education's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data to compare degrees and certificates conferred by non-ATE-funded institutions and ATE-funded institutions before and after receipt of funding. Approval is only sought for new data that will be collected for the study, including:
▸ Survey data from ATE PIs who were awarded funding between 2007 and 2015 to understand how projects and centers operate and how awards are implemented: This survey collects data on the types of ATE-supported activities students engage in, program completers, graduates in the workforce, and professional development offered to secondary and postsecondary educators.
▸ Survey data from faculty and teachers who directly participated in ATE-funded professional development (hereafter referred to as faculty) between 2012 and 2015 to understand the perceived impact on faculty growth: This survey asks about faculty members' participation in professional development activities, professional networks or communities of practice, and whether participation in the networks or communities improved their instruction.
▸ Survey data from current and former students who have directly participated in ATE-funded training activities (defined as having enrolled in technology degree or certificate programs developed as part of ATE-funded work, or worked in technology labs maintained as part of ATE-funded work, or participated in industry internships created as part of ATE-funded work) between 2012 and 2015 to understand: their reasons for participating in an ATE program, the perceived value and impact of the program, skills and experiences obtained, reasons for leaving the program (if applicable), interest in pursuing advanced education or occupation in advanced technology field, and educational and occupational status obtained.
▸
▸
▸
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting September 7-8, 2017, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agendas, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“SEA” or “Act”)
FINRA is proposing a rule change relating to members' filing obligations under FINRA Rule 6432 (Compliance with the Information Requirements of SEA Rule 15c2-11). The proposal implements a new electronic Form 211 in place of the current paper form.
The proposed rule change does not make any changes to the text of FINRA rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
SEA Rule 15c2-11 generally prohibits a broker-dealer from publishing any quotation for a security not listed or traded on a national securities exchange, or directly or indirectly, submitting any such quotation for publication, in any quotation medium,
FINRA Rule 6432 (Compliance with the Information Requirements of SEA Rule 15c2-11) facilitates member compliance with SEA Rule 15c2-11 by prescribing the method by which member firms must demonstrate to FINRA compliance with SEA Rule 15c2-11.
FINRA proposes to transition to an electronic Form 211, which would be accessible to member firms through FINRA's Firm Gateway.
The proposed electronic Form 211, as does the current paper Form 211, includes a general section (
The issuer and security information section of the proposed electronic Form 211 requests the same basic information regarding the security and issuer that currently is requested in the paper form, including, among other things, the name and address of the issuer and its transfer agent; the security's symbol (if assigned); type of security; the security's CUSIP number; the total number of shares outstanding at the end of the issuer's most recent fiscal year; the initial price of the quotation sought to be entered (if any); and the basis upon which such price was determined and the factors considered in making such determination. The proposed electronic Form 211 also includes a request for the transfer agent's telephone number.
A Standard Industrial Classification or “SIC” Code is used by government agencies to classify industry areas. A Central Index Key or “CIK” is a unique identifier assigned by the SEC to all companies and people who file disclosure documents through EDGAR with the SEC.
As is currently the case with the paper Form 211, the proposed electronic Form 211 requests information specific to the requirements set forth in SEA Rule 15c2-11 paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) or (a)(5), as applicable. SEA Rule 15c2-11 generally requires that members have a reasonable basis for believing that the specified Form 211 information is accurate in all material respects and obtained from a reliable source. Thus, in demonstrating compliance with SEA Rule 15c2-11 and FINRA Rule 6432, members provide a variety of supporting documentation to FINRA. In addition to the information specifically required by Form 211, which is described below, the electronic form also permits members to submit additional supporting information and documentation electronically.
For applications submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of SEA Rule 15c2-11 (for recent offerings pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”)), the current paper Form 211 requests that the member provide the prospectus that became effective less than 90 calendar days prior to the filing of the Form 211, as specified by Section 10(a) of the 1933 Act. The current paper form also asks for the SEC effective date of the recent offering and the date the security was issued. The proposed electronic form continues to solicit this information.
For applications submitted under paragraph (a)(2) of SEA Rule 15c2-11 (for recent offerings pursuant to Regulation A), the current paper Form 211 requests that the member provide the offering circular that became effective less than 40 calendar days prior to the filing of the Form 211, as provided for under Regulation A of the 1933 Act. The current paper form similarly requests the date the offering circular became qualified less than 40 calendar days prior to the filing of the Form 211 and the date of the most recent security issuance. The electronic Form 211 continues to require information on when the Regulation A offering was qualified by the SEC and the date the security was issued.
For applications submitted under paragraph (a)(3) of SEA Rule 15c2-11 (for SEC reporting companies), the current paper Form 211 requests that the member provide the issuer's most recent annual report filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act or the annual statement referred to in Section 12(g)(2)(G)(i) of the Act, and provide quarterly and other current reports filed after the issuer's most recent annual report or statement. The current form also asks that members list each report or statement and applicable amendments filed by the issuer through EDGAR that the member has in its possession that meets the requirements of this section. The proposed electronic Form 211 modifies the current informational requirements in the paper form to incorporate recent changes to SEA Rule 15c2-11.
For applications submitted under paragraph (a)(4) of SEA Rule 15c2-11 (for foreign private issuers), the current paper Form 211 requests that the member provide the following information regarding the issuer's reliance upon Rule 12g3-2(b) of the SEA: (1) The foreign exchange(s) on which the subject class of securities is listed that, either singly or together with the trading of the same class of the issuer's securities in another foreign jurisdiction, constitutes the primary trading market for those securities; (2) the symbol(s) of the security(ies) that trades on the foreign exchange(s); and (3) the location of the internet Web site or electronic information delivery system that the member firm would provide upon request to any person to direct them to the information that the issuer published electronically pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b). This information will continue to be solicited on the electronic form.
For applications submitted under paragraph (a)(5) of SEA Rule 15c2-11 (for non-SEC reporting companies and all other companies), the current paper Form 211, among other things, requires that members provide the issuer's most recent balance sheet, profit and loss and retained earnings statements, equivalent financial information for the two prior fiscal years for the issuer or any predecessor company, and the
In addition, the current paper form requires that the member: (1) Describe the issuer's business, products/services offered by the issuer, and the issuer's facilities; (2) list the name(s) of the current chief executive officer(s) and members of the board of directors of the issuer; (3) provide information as to whether the member (or any person associated with it) is affiliated directly or indirectly with the issuer and, if so, the nature of such affiliation; (4) provide information as to whether the quotation sought to be displayed is being published or submitted on behalf of another broker-dealer and, if so, the name of such broker-dealer; and (5) provide information on whether the quotation sought to be displayed is being published or submitted directly or indirectly on behalf of the issuer or any director, officer or any person who is directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than ten percent of the outstanding units or shares of any equity security of the issuer, and, if so, the name of the person (and the basis for any exemption under the federal securities laws for sales of such securities on behalf of this person). The proposed electronic Form 211 continues to request this information. Because the proposed electronic Form 211 allows documents to be uploaded, the process of supplying FINRA with the supporting documentation, which, historically, has been provided by members in hard copy, would be improved. For example, a member could upload a recent annual report to document multiple items of information, such as the issuer's name, current chief executive officer, description of its business and facilities, and other required information.
Paragraph (b) of SEA Rule 15c2-11 requests information required pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of SEA Rule 15c2-11. Among other things, the current paper form requires members to describe the circumstances surrounding the submission of the application and requests that the member include the identity of any person for whom the quotation is being submitted and any information provided to the member by such person. The proposed electronic Form 211 would continue to request this information,
The current paper form requires members to provide any material information, including adverse information regarding the issuer, of which the member is aware or has in its possession. The proposed electronic Form 211 also includes this information request. If the member selects “yes,” an explanatory text entry is required; a document upload is optional.
Finally, the certifications required by the proposed electronic Form 211 mirror those contained in the current paper form, including that the undersigned must have a reasonable basis for believing that the information accompanying the form is accurate in all material respects and that the sources of information are reliable; that the undersigned understands and acknowledges that this affirmative review obligation applies to all subsequent submissions made in connection with the Form 211 application; that the undersigned certifies that they have examined the form and, to the best of their knowledge, it is true, correct, and complete; that neither the member nor associated person have accepted or will accept any payment or other consideration, directly or indirectly, from the issuer of the security to be quoted, or any affiliate or promoter thereof, for publishing a quotation or acting as market maker in the security to be quoted, or submitting an application in connection therewith (including the submission of the Form 211); and that the undersigned acknowledges that copies of the form, accompanying documents, and subsequent submissions may be provided to the SEC, other regulatory agencies, or to the quotation medium(s) on which the security is or will be quoted.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes the proposal will simplify and streamline the process by which members submit Form 211s, making it more efficient for both FINRA and members. As noted above, the proposed electronic form will be accessible through FINRA's Firm Gateway, enabling members to complete the Form 211 electronically, as well as upload supporting documentation. Thus, FINRA believes the proposal enhances FINRA's oversight of the Form 211 process, thereby supporting FINRA's efforts under Rule 6432 to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest with respect to non-exchange-listed securities.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal is intended to simplify the Form 211 process and increase efficiency for both FINRA and the firms that file Form 211s without any loss in the information that is being collected. By implementing an electronic Form 211, FINRA believes the proposal promotes more efficient compliance with respect to the requirements around initiating and resuming quotations for non-exchange-listed securities. In addition, the proposal applies equally to any firm that submits a Form 211, as all member firms have access to the FINRA Gateway, and new firms receive login credentials upon registration with FINRA. As a result, FINRA believes the proposal will not have a significant impact on competition among firms that seek to publish quotations for non-exchange-listed securities.
To the extent that the manual administration of Form 211 in paper form was viewed by members as burdensome, those participants should
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated August 24, 2017.
Issued on August 24, 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 number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15267 B and for economic injury is 15268 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Texas.
State Justice Institute.
Notice of meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, September 11, 2017 at 1:45 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Umstead Hotel in Cary, North Carolina. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 4th quarter of FY 2017, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.
Umstead Hotel, 100 Woodland Pond Drive, Cary, NC 27513.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 20190, 571-313-8843,
Savage Davenport Railroad Company (SDR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from the City of Davenport, Iowa (City) and to operate a 2.8-mile line of railroad (the Line).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
SDR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. SDR also states that there are no provisions or agreements limiting interchange with other carriers.
The transaction may be consummated on or after September 15, 2017, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than September 8, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36142, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Richard F. Riley Jr., Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20007-5109.
According to SDR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Savage Services Corporation (Savage) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of Savage Davenport Railroad Company (SDR) upon SDR's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is September 15, 2017, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice was filed). SDR states that it intends to consummate the transaction in October 2017.
Savage is a privately held company that controls Savage, Bingham & Garfield Railroad Company (SBG), a Class III rail carrier.
Savage represents that: (1) The rail lines of SDR and SBG do not connect with each other; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the rail line to be operated by SDR with any other railroad in applicant's corporate family; and (3) there are no other rail carriers in the Savage corporate family.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under Section 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than September 8, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36142 (Sub-No. 1) must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on applicant's representative, Richard F. Riley Jr., Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20007-5109.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before September 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0796 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brittany Newton, (202) 267-6691, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will be used to evaluate an applicant's project and capabilities, make the required determinations, and administer any agreements executed upon approval of loan guarantees. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2017-0151 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Brian Rogers, 202-366-8159, Office of Marine Financing, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. The collection of information is necessary for plotting of U.S.-flag and U.S.-owned vessel locations. A
Comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2017.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Russell Krause, 202-366-1031, Division of Sealift Operations and Emergency Response, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93.
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. The collection involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable. A
Comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2017.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Barbara Jackson, 202-366-0615, Office of Management and Administrative Services, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W26-494, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR), on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover Limited, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2012-2018 Jaguar motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135,
The closing date for comments on the petition is October 2, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
This notice of receipt of JLR's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
S5.4.3
. . .
(a) Permanently affixed, engraved or embossed;. . .
JLR described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, JLR submitted the following reasoning:
1. The installed label will not fall off or become displaced during normal vehicle use or operation.
2. The installed label provides mechanical resistance to being removed.
3. There is interference between the installed label and reservoir filler neck such that a minimum of 2mm interference exists.
4. The installed label is only able to be removed when the brake fluid reservoir cap is displaced which, based on routine maintenance schedules, is once every 3 years in service.
5. The filler cap shows clearly the specification of brake fluid required.
6. The filler cap provides clear symbols including one for caution and one referring to handbook instructions. The owner's handbook descriptions indicate the proper brake fluid specification to be used in the vehicle.
7. The installed cap conforms to the requirements of ISO9128:2006 which is a requirement of UN-ECE Regulation 13 and 13h. NHTSA has previously granted petitions to accept ISO symbols in the absence of FMVSS labelling:
a. Jaguar Land Rover petition regarding controls and displays including brake system-related telltales (FR Vol.78, No. 213 Pg. 66101-66103).
b. Ford petition regarding controls and displays including brake system-related telltales (FR Vol. 78, No. 225 Pg 69931-69932)
c. Hyundai petition regarding lower anchorage identification (FR Vol. 73, No. 129 Pg. 38290-38291).
8. JLR has not received any customer complaints on this issue.
9. There have been no accidents or injuries as a result of this issue.
10. Vehicle production has been corrected to fully conform to FMVSS No. 135,
JLR concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that JLR no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after JLR notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Denial of petition.
Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that certain MNA tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119,
For further information on this decision contact Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA), has determined that certain MNA tires do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119,
Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on November 10, 2016 in the
Affected are approximately 184 Michelin Pilot Power 3 size 180/55ZR17 M/C (73W) replacement motorcycle tires manufactured between April 17, 2016, and May 7, 2016.
MNA describes the noncompliance as the inadvertent omission of the markings designating the maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for that load, as required by paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119.
Paragraph S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 provides, in pertinent part:
S6.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in this paragraph, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section. . .
(d) The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure of the tire, shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.
(Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. . .
MNA described the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential for motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, MNA submitted the following reasoning:
A.
B.
1. For example, MNA observes that NHTSA's online “Motorcycle Safety Tips” specifically refers to the owner's manual and vehicle placard:
2. Additionally, MNA argues that the Motorcycle Industry Council Tire Guide explains,
3. Similarly, Michelin's Professional Motorcycle Tire Guide 2016 states:
4. According to MNA, the applicable pressure is also a function of the maximum speed capability of the motorcycle, another reason that the proper source for tire inflation pressure is the motorcycle vehicle placard or owner's manual rather than the tire sidewall.
5. Michelin's Professional Motorcycle Tire Guide 2016 and the Motorcycle Industry Tire Guide both advise not to exceed the pressure marked on the sidewall when setting a usage pressure. MNA also notes, the recommended pressure on the motorcycle vehicle placard and the motorcycle owner's manual conforming to 49 CFR 571.120 will never exceed the sidewall pressure for a properly fitted tire as described above in section “A” (Installation). The tire size, load index, speed symbol, and load range all provide for proper installation. Additionally, MNA states that the sidewall pressure is not a “maximum” pressure. It is the pressure corresponding to the maximum load. For example, Michelin's Professional Motorcycle Tire Guide 2016 advises that the pressure regulator be set at 60 psi for mounting motorcycle tires, and the Michelin motorcycle Web site FAQ's explain that up to 60 psi of pressure can be used to seat beads when mounting motorcycle tires and then adjusted to the recommended pressure found on the vehicle placard or owner's manual. The sidewall pressure corresponding to the maximum load on the subject tire is 290 kPa or 42 psi.
C.
D.
E.
MNA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition for exemption from
The trucking industry questioned the advisability of labeling maximum inflation and load rating on the tire because it appeared to prohibit the adjustment of pressures to road conditions. The purpose of the labeling is to . . . warn the user of the tire's maximum capabilities.”
Furthermore, in the same rulemaking, the Agency provided relief to manufacturers by accepting the commenters' proposal to have the information only required on one side of M/C tires: “Several manufacturers suggested that labeling appear on only one side of a tire when both sides of the tire, as mounted, will be available for inspection. Accordingly, motorcycle tires must now be labeled on one side wall only, . . .
The complete lack of maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure information on the subject Michelin motorcycle tires creates a potential safety hazard to the end users of these tires. NHTSA reiterates that marking tires with the maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure is necessary for achieving the following: (A) Proper installation on the vehicle—in this case a motorcycle, (B) proper inflation pressure even when application pressures for the front and rear positions are identified on the motorcycle vehicle placard or vehicle owner's manual, and (C) proper usage because the tire size, speed symbol, and load index do not adequately or easily convey the maximum load and pressure capability of a tire. Tire size, speed symbol, and load index are indicators that may be useful for technical professionals in the field; however, it is unreasonable to expect a typical end user to identify the maximum load and pressure using only the markings of tire size, speed symbol, and load index. It is far more reasonable to expect the vehicle user to overload a tire without the explicit guidance provided by the required sidewall markings. NHTSA believes it is necessary to label the tire to ensure the end user is adequately informed about the maximum capability of the tire. Failing to provide load and pressure information, both in English and Metric units, presents a safety risk because users are deprived the information needed to properly install, use, and service the tire.
(49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing the name of one individual, whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to an executive order issued on September 23, 2001, titled “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism,” from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List).
OFAC's action described in this notice was taken on August 22, 2017.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
The following person is removed from the SDN List, effective as of August 22, 2017.
1. SCHNEIDER, Daniel Martin (a.k.a. SCHNEIDER, Martin Daniel), zum Gruehlingsstollen 1A, Friedrichstahl 66299, Germany; Rosenstrasse 2, Friedrichstahl 66299, Germany; Petrusstrasse 32, Herrensohr Dudweiler, Saarbruecken 66125, Germany; DOB 09 Sep 1985; POB Neunkirchen, Germany; citizen Germany; Passport 2318047793 (Germany); Federal ID Card 2318229333; currently incarcerated at Schwalmstadt, Germany (individual) [SDGT].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person that has been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this person are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On August 29, 2017, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
AL-MANSUR, Salim Mustafa Muhammad (a.k.a. MANSUR AL-IFRI, Salim Mustafa Muhammad; a.k.a. MANSUR, Salim; a.k.a. MUSTAFA, Salim Mansur; a.k.a. “AL-IFRI, Saleem”; a.k.a. “AL-SHAKLAR, Hajji Salim”), Mersin, Turkey; Istanbul, Turkey; Adana, Turkey; DOB 1959; nationality Iraq; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism” (E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans (Committee) will conduct a site visit on September 18-22, 2016, in Muskogee, OK. Sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting tours of VA facilities, participating in off-site events, and participating in workgroup sessions. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information. The site visit will also include a town hall meeting for women Veterans and those who provide services to women Veterans.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding the needs of women Veterans with respect to health care, rehabilitation, compensation, outreach, and other programs and activities administered by VA designed to meet such needs. The Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding such programs and activities.
On Monday September 18, the Committee will convene an open session at the Jack C. Montgomery VA Medical Center, 1011 Honor Heights Drive, Muskogee, OK 74401, in Downing Room, Room 2B-54, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The agenda will include overview briefings from the Jack C. Montgomery VA Medical Center leadership on the facilities, programs, demographics, women Veterans programs, and other services available for Veterans in Muskogee.
On the morning of Tuesday, September 19, the Committee will convene an open session at the Jack C. Montgomery VA Medical Center, 1011 Honor Heights Drive, Muskogee, OK 74401, in Downing Room, Room 2B-54, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The agenda will include a continuation of briefings from the Jack C. Montgomery VA Medical Center leadership on the facilities, programs, demographics, women Veterans programs, and other services available for Veterans in Muskogee. In the afternoon, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., the Committee will reconvene a closed session, as it tours the Jack C. Montgomery VA Medical Center, 1011 Honor Heights Drive, Muskogee, OK 74401.
On Wednesday, September 20, the Committee will convene closed sessions, as it tours the Fort Gibson National Cemetery (1423 Cemetery Road, Fort Gibson, OK 74434) and the Muskogee Regional Benefit Office (125 South Main Street, Muskogee, OK 74401).
On Thursday, September 21, the Committee will convene a closed session, as it tours the Ernest Childers VA Outpatient Clinic, 9322 E. 41st Street, Tulsa, OK 74145. Additionally, the Committee will convene a closed session, as it tours the Tulsa Vet Center, 14002 E. 21st Street, Tulsa, OK 74134.
On the morning of Friday, September 22, the Committee will convene an open session at the Muskogee Civic Center, 425 Boston St, Muskogee, OK 74401, as it conducts an out-briefing with Jack C. Montgomery VA Medical Center/Muskogee Regional Benefit Office/Fort Gibson National Cemetery leadership, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. The Committee will have an open session, as it conducts a town hall meeting with the women Veterans and other stakeholders. The town hall meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end promptly at noon.
With the exception of the town hall meeting, there will be no time for public comment during the meeting. Members of the public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of intent to dispose of real property during the term of an Enhanced-Use Lease (EUL).
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs intends to dispose of approximately 102 acres of property at the VA Medical Center in Brecksville, Ohio, which is currently being leased by the City of Brecksville. The Secretary has determined that VA no longer needs such property, and that a transfer to the City of Brecksville of all right, title, and interest of the United States in the property would be in the best interest of VA.
Edward L. Bradley III, Office of Asset Enterprise Management (044), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7778 (this is not a toll-free number).
The subject property consists of approximately 102 acres of land and improvements leased under a 75-year enhanced-use lease executed on Oct. 1, 2009, which is currently leased to the City of Brecksville. Section 8164 of title
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.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the changes made by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization of 2015 (MACRA) to section 1882 of the Social Security Act (the Act), which governs Medicare supplemental insurance. This notice also recognizes that the Model Regulation adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) on August 29, 2016, is considered to be the applicable NAIC Model Regulation for purposes of section 1882 of the Act, subject to our clarifications that are set forth in this notice.
Amendments made by section 401 of MACRA apply to issuers of Medigap policies for policies issued on or after January 1, 2020.
Derrick Claggett, (410) 786-2113.
The Medicare program was established by Congress in 1965 with the enactment of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). The program provides payment for certain medical expenses for persons 65 years of age or older, certain disabled individuals, persons with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and certain individuals exposed to environmental health hazards.
Medicare has three types of benefits. The Hospital Insurance Program (Part A) covers inpatient care. The Supplementary Medical Insurance Program (Part B) covers a wide range of medical services, including physicians' services and outpatient hospital services, as well as equipment and supplies, such as prosthetic devices. The Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program (Part D) covers outpatient prescription drugs not otherwise covered by Part B.
Beneficiaries can get their Part A and Part B benefits in two ways. Under Original Medicare, beneficiaries get their Part A and Part B benefits directly from the Federal government. Beneficiaries can also choose to get their Part A and Part B benefits through private health plans that contract with Medicare. Most of these contracts are under Part C of Medicare, the Medicare Advantage (MA) Program.
While Medicare provides extensive benefits, it is not designed to cover the total cost of medical care for Medicare beneficiaries. Under Original Medicare, even if the items or services are covered by Medicare, most beneficiaries are responsible for various deductibles, coinsurance, and in some cases copayment amounts.
Under Original Medicare, a beneficiary with Part A is generally responsible for the Part A inpatient hospital deductible for each benefit period. A benefit period is the period beginning on the first day of hospitalization and extending until the beneficiary has not been an inpatient of a hospital or skilled nursing facility for 60 consecutive days. The inpatient hospital deductible is updated annually in accordance with a statutory formula. The inpatient hospital deductible for calendar year (CY) 2016 was $1,288.00 and for CY 2017 it is $1,316.00.
A beneficiary with Part B is responsible for the Part B deductible for each calendar year. The deductible is indexed to increase with the average cost of Part B services for aged beneficiaries. The Part B deductible for CY 2016 was $166.00 and for CY 2017 it is $183.00.
As previously stated, beneficiaries are generally responsible for paying coinsurance for covered items and services. For example, the coinsurance applicable to physicians' services under Part B is generally 20 percent of the Medicare-approved amount for the service(s). If a physician or certain other suppliers accept assignment, the beneficiary is only responsible for the coinsurance amount. When beneficiaries receive covered services from physicians or other suppliers who do not accept assignment of their Medicare claims, beneficiaries may also be responsible for some amounts in excess of the Medicare approved amount (excess charges).
Some items and services are not covered under either Part A or Part B; for example, custodial nursing home care, most dental care, eyeglasses, and items or services furnished outside the United States. Original Medicare covers many health care services and supplies, but beneficiaries are responsible for the out-of-pocket expenses described previously. As such, most beneficiaries choose to obtain some type of additional coverage to pay some of the costs not covered by Original Medicare. For people who do not have coverage from a current or previous employer that performs this function, or who do not qualify for Medicaid, the most common coverage is Medicare supplemental insurance (also called Medigap). Some beneficiaries may also try to defray some expenses with hospital indemnity insurance, nursing home or long-term care insurance, or specified disease (for example, cancer) insurance.
A Medicare supplemental (Medigap) policy is a health insurance policy sold by private insurance companies specifically to fill “gaps” in Original Medicare coverage. A Medigap policy typically provides coverage for some or all of the deductible and coinsurance amounts applicable to Medicare-covered services, and sometimes covers items and services that are not covered by Medicare. Section 1882(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act specifies that a party may not sell a Medigap policy with knowledge that the policy duplicates health benefits which the applicant is otherwise entitled to, including from Medicaid programs that cover Medicare cost-sharing (for example, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary Program), MA plans, and individual market plans.
Section 1882 of the Act sets forth requirements and standards that govern the sale of Medigap policies. It incorporates by reference, as part of the statutory requirements, certain minimum standards established by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). These minimum standards, known as the NAIC Model Standards are found in the “Model Regulation to Implement the NAIC Medicare Supplement Insurance Minimum Standards Act” (NAIC Model), initially adopted by the NAIC on June 6, 1979, and revised periodically to reflect subsequent Federal legislative changes. (For additional information, see section 1882(g)(2)(A) of the Act.)
Under section 1882 of the Act, Medigap policies generally may not be sold unless they conform to the standardized benefit packages that have been defined and designated by the NAIC. The 10 original standardized plans were created in accordance with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA '90), and designated A through J. The Balanced Budget Act of
Effective January 1, 2006, Medigap policies could no longer be sold with a prescription drug benefit. Three of the original standardized Medigap plans, H, I and J, as well as some Medigap policies in the waiver States, may still contain coverage for outpatient prescription drugs if the policies were sold before January 1, 2006. In addition, some pre-standardized plans cover drugs. If a beneficiary holding one of these policies enrolls in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage, the prescription drug coverage is removed from the individual's Medigap policy.
Section 1882(b)(1) of the Act provides that Medigap policies issued in a State are deemed to meet the Federal requirements if the State's program regulating Medigap policies provides for the application of standards is at least as stringent as those contained in the NAIC Model Regulation, and if the State requirements are equal to or more stringent than those set forth in section 1882 of the Act.
States must amend their regulatory programs to implement all new Federal statutory requirements and applicable changes to the NAIC Model Standards. Thus, States will now be required to implement the statutory changes made by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 the (MACRA), and the changes to the NAIC Model Standards made to comport with the requirements of MACRA. The revised NAIC Model is attached to this notice. States generally cannot modify the standardized benefit packages set out in the NAIC Model. However, with respect to other provisions, States retain the authority to enact provisions that are more stringent than those that are incorporated in the NAIC Model Standards or in the Federal statutory requirements. (See section 1882(b)(1)(B) of the Act.) States that have received a waiver under section 1882(p)(6) of the Act may continue to authorize the sale of policies that contain different benefits than the standardized benefit packages. However, those States are also required to amend their regulatory programs to implement the new Federal statutory requirements and changes to the NAIC Model Standards as a result of MACRA. (See section 1882(z)(3) of the Act.)
Some standardized Medigap plans currently sold on the market provide first-dollar coverage for beneficiaries, which means the plan pays the Medicare deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments so that the beneficiary has no out-of-pocket costs for Medicare covered services. MACRA was enacted on April 16, 2015 (Pub. L. 114-10), and beginning on January 1, 2020, it prohibits the sale of Medigap plans with first-dollar coverage to an individual who is a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary,” which is further defined in section II.C.1. of this notice. The effect of this provision is that as of this date, a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary” will be required to pay out-of-pocket for the Medicare Part B deductible. The Part B deductible for CY 2016 was $166.00 and for CY 2017 it is $183.00.
Consistent with the process authorized in section 1882(p)(1) of the Act, the NAIC formulated a task force consisting of State regulators, consumer advocates, industry representatives, and staff from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to draft changes to the Medigap standardized plan structure and the NAIC Model Standards to align with section 401 of MACRA. The draft changes were approved by the NAIC task force on April 4, 2016. The revised NAIC Model (with the approved changes) was adopted by the NAIC on August 29, 2016. The changes apply to Medigap policies or certificates issued on or after January 1, 2020.
The following are the changes, effective January 1, 2020, to the standardized Medigap plans:
• A new Plan G With High Deductible is created, which is identical to the Plan F With High Deductible except there is no coverage for the Part B deductible.
• For a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary”—
++ Plan C is redesignated as Plan D, which does not provide coverage for the Part B deductible;
++ Plan F is redesignated as Plan G, which does not provide coverage for the Part B deductible; and
++ Plan F With High Deductible is redesignated as Plan G With High Deductible, which does not provide coverage for the Part B deductible.
As a result of these changes, the revised NAIC Model contains the following three sets of standardized plans:
• Sections 8 and 9 of the NAIC Model outline the benefits for standardized plans with an effective date of coverage prior to June 1, 2010 (the 1990 standardized plans).
• Sections 8.1 and 9.1 of the NAIC Model spell out the benefits for the standardized plans with an effective date for coverage on or after June 1, 2010 (the “2010 standardized plans”).
• Section 9.2 of the NAIC Model contains the benefits for the standardized plans for an individual who is a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary” with an effective date for coverage on or after January 1, 2020 (the 2020 standardized plans for Newly Eligible Medicare Beneficiaries).
Section 401 of MACRA defines a newly eligible Medicare beneficiary” as an individual who is neither of the following:
• An individual who has attained age 65 before January 1, 2020.
• An individual who was entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A pursuant to section 226(b) or 226A of the Act, or deemed eligible for benefits under 226(a) of the Act, before January 1, 2020.
Section 9.2.B. of the NAIC Model captures this definition. An individual who is not a newly eligible Medicare beneficiary can continue to purchase Medigap policies that provide coverage of the Medicare Part B deductible.
Individuals retroactively entitled to Medicare Part A after January 1, 2020, with an effective date for Medicare coverage before January 1, 2020 would not fall under the definition of a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary” because their Part A benefits would begin before January 1, 2020. In addition, an individual who has attained age 65 before January 1, 2020, but who was not entitled to Medicare Part A until after January 1, 2020, would also not be a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary.” Similarly, environmental exposure
Section 8.B. of the NAIC Model describes the standards for basic benefits common to the 1990 standardized Plans A through J. Section 8.D.(1) of the NAIC Model describes the standards for benefits common to the 1990 standardized Plans K and L. Section 8.1.B. of the NAIC Model describes the basic benefits common for the 2010 standardized plans A through D, F, F with High Deductible, G, M and N. Section 9.1.E.(8) of the NAIC Model describes the standards for benefits common to the 2010 standardized plans K and L. Section 9.2.A. of the NAIC Model describes the standards for benefits common to the 2020 standardized plans for a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary”. Sections 8.B.(3)., 8.D.(1)(c)., 8.1.B.(3)., and 9.1.E.(8)(c). of the NAIC Model describe what is commonly referred to as the “upon exhaustion” benefit. Medicare provides inpatient hospital benefits for up to 90 days in a benefit period, plus any of the 60 lifetime reserve days that have not already been used. After a beneficiary exhausts this coverage, including the lifetime reserve days, all Medigap policies cover 100 percent of Medicare Part A eligible expenses for hospitalization paid at the applicable prospective payment system (PPS) rate or other appropriate Medicare standard of payment, subject to a lifetime maximum benefit of 365 days.
We note that the last sentence of sections 8.B.(3)., 8.D.(1)(c)., 8.1.B.(3)., and 9.1.E.(8)(c). of the NAIC Model is not part of the benefit description of the “upon exhaustion” benefit. Therefore, a State's failure to include this language in its regulatory program does not affect the State's compliance with Federal Medigap standards and requirements. Similarly, section 17.D.(4). of the NAIC Model sets forth the outlines of coverage for Plans A through D, F or High Deductible F, G or High Deductible G, K through N. Each outline contains, at the bottom of the chart on Part A benefits, a “NOTICE” to prospective purchasers about the “upon exhaustion” benefit. The final sentence of this notice is also not part of the benefit description, and therefore, a State's failure to include this language in the outlines of coverage does not affect the State's compliance with Federal Medigap standards and requirements.
Consistent with the December 4, 1998 (63 FR 67078)
Section 1882(z)(4) of the Act, as added by section 401 of MACRA, generally provides that for a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary” any reference in section 1882 of the Act to Plans C and F shall be deemed, as of January 1, 2020, to be a reference to Plans D and G, respectively. As a result, the references to Plans C and F as plans that must be offered by issuers on a guaranteed issue basis under section 1882(o)(5), (s)(3)(C)(i), and (v)(3)(A)(i) of the Act are replaced with references to Plans D and G, respectively, for a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary.” Further, State laws that currently provide additional guaranteed issue rights for Plans C and F may need to be changed for coverage with an effective date on or after January 1, 2020, to align with MACRA prohibition on the sale of first-dollar Medigap coverage to a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary.”
Payment of Medigap benefits is, in many cases, based on whether a service is one that is generally covered by Medicare. The NAIC Model accordingly contains a definition of “Medicare eligible expenses.” This definition provides that “Medicare eligible expenses” means only those expenses of the kinds covered by Medicare Parts A and B, to the extent recognized as reasonable and necessary by Medicare. As outlined in the March 25, 2005
Consistent with section 1882(z)(4) of the Act, section 9.2A.(4) of the revised NAIC Model redesignates Plan F With High Deductible as a new Plan G With High Deductible for an individual who is a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary,” as defined by section 401 of MACRA. As a result, the references to Plan F With High Deductible under section 1882(p)(11)(A)(i) of the Act is replaced with a reference to Plan G With High Deductible for a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary.” Plan G With High Deductible does not provide coverage for any portion of the Part B deductible and will be available beginning on January 1, 2020.
Section 9.1.E.(7). of the NAIC Model provides that states may permit the sale of Plan “G” With High Deductible to an individual who is not a “newly eligible Medicare beneficiary.” While states are permitted to provide additional rights and protections beyond the Federal minimum standards, we note that this option and the last sentence of section 9.1.E.(7). of the NAIC are not part of the Federal standards. Therefore, a state's failure to include this language in its regulatory program does not affect the state's compliance with Federal Medigap standards and requirements.
The following tables list the standardized Medigap benefit packages (by standardized plan year and effective date of coverage), with a cross-reference to the sections of the attached NAIC Model where the packages are described in detail. The revised NAIC Model, adopted by the NAIC on August 29, 2016, is reprinted at the end of this notice. The NAIC has granted permission for the NAIC Model to be published and reproduced. Under 1 CFR 2.6, there is no restriction on the republication of material as it appears in the
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
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 |