| Page Range | 43155-43296 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 43192 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery; 2017 Illex Squid Quota Harvested | |
| 82 FR 43295 - Patriot Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 43293 - National Days of Prayer and Remembrance, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 43237 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43254 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 43205 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to the Utah Division of Administrative Rules, R307-300 Series; Area Source Rule for Attainment of Fine Particulate Matter Standards | |
| 82 FR 43251 - Comments Regarding Listing on the National Register of Historic Places of Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World, Liberty Island, New York Harbor | |
| 82 FR 43280 - Decatur Central Railroad, L.L.C.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Topflight Grain Cooperative, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 43237 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 82 FR 43237 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 43223 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Fisheries Research | |
| 82 FR 43259 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 43239 - Medicare Program; Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43262 - Innovator ETFs Trust, et al. | |
| 82 FR 43276 - Innovator ETFs Trust, et al. | |
| 82 FR 43231 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 43232 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 43235 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 43236 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 43219 - Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 43219 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 82 FR 43218 - In the Matter of: Alexey Krutilin, a/k/a David Powell, 16 Melioratorov Street, Ivanovskoe Village, Stavropol Region, Russia 357020; Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 43217 - In the Matter of: Dmitrii Karpenko, a/k/a Simon Fox, Pavlova St 11-75, Nevinnomyssk, Stavropol Region, Russia; Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 43216 - Order Denying Export Privileges | |
| 82 FR 43227 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43248 - Waiver of Compliance With Navigation Laws; Hurricanes Harvey and Irma | |
| 82 FR 43220 - National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43155 - Importation of Orchids in Growing Media From the Republic of Korea Into the Continental United States | |
| 82 FR 43281 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions of Proposed Highway/Interchange Improvement in California; Statute of Limitations on Claims | |
| 82 FR 43282 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California | |
| 82 FR 43198 - Definition of Automobile Transporter | |
| 82 FR 43229 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Gainful Employment Program-Subpart R-Cohort Default Rates | |
| 82 FR 43230 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Gainful Employment Program-Subpart Q-Appeals for Debt to Earnings Rates | |
| 82 FR 43228 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Gainful Employment Programs-Subpart Q | |
| 82 FR 43283 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Power and Communication Contractors Association (PCCA) | |
| 82 FR 43279 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43269 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43278 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43222 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Web Survey To Collect Economic Data From Anglers in the Gulf of Mexico | |
| 82 FR 43221 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; North Pacific Observer Safety and Security Survey | |
| 82 FR 43255 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Producer Price Index Survey | |
| 82 FR 43258 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 82 FR 43257 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 82 FR 43288 - Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of Meeting Cancellation | |
| 82 FR 43238 - Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43237 - Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices | |
| 82 FR 43281 - Twelfth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary | |
| 82 FR 43248 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: USCIS Electronic Payment Processing | |
| 82 FR 43244 - Prescription Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 43241 - Biosimilar User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 43243 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Focus Groups as Used by the Food and Drug Administration (All Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Products) | |
| 82 FR 43197 - Arcadia Biosciences, Inc.; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) | |
| 82 FR 43281 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Desert Aerospace, LLC. | |
| 82 FR 43226 - Notice of Roundtable on Intellectual Property and Trade Shows | |
| 82 FR 43229 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Office of State Support Progress Check Quarterly Protocol | |
| 82 FR 43280 - Ticonderoga SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
| 82 FR 43280 - Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P.; License No. 05/05-0327; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
| 82 FR 43279 - Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest | |
| 82 FR 43174 - Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation | |
| 82 FR 43224 - Endangered and Threatened Species; File No. 21316 | |
| 82 FR 43288 - Employees Whose Association With For-Profit Educational Institutions Poses No Detriment to Veterans | |
| 82 FR 43278 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the Aptus Fortified Value ETF, a Series of ETF Series Solutions, Under Exchange Rule 14.11(c) | |
| 82 FR 43264 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rules 4702 and 4754 Relating to the Nasdaq Closing Cross and To Make Other Related Changes | |
| 82 FR 43261 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay Implementation of SR-ISE-2017-32 | |
| 82 FR 43274 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add a Discount to the Pricing Schedule for Special Requests for Security Position Reports Relating to Municipal Security Issues | |
| 82 FR 43192 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions #5 Through #11 | |
| 82 FR 43267 - The Vanguard Group, Inc., et al. | |
| 82 FR 43269 - Medley Capital Corporation, et al. | |
| 82 FR 43260 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 43261 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 43260 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 43260 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 43240 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43255 - Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 82 FR 43252 - Certain Mirrors With Internal Illumination and Components Thereof; | |
| 82 FR 43192 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Adjustment to the 2017 Winter II Quota | |
| 82 FR 43208 - Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Missoula | |
| 82 FR 43180 - Montana Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Missoula | |
| 82 FR 43176 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District | |
| 82 FR 43209 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 43202 - Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Emission Reduction Credit Banking | |
| 82 FR 43195 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters | |
| 82 FR 43163 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43171 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43226 - Initial List of Actions To Enhance and Modernize the Federal Environmental Review and Authorization Process | |
| 82 FR 43249 - U.S. Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 82 FR 43286 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 43285 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 43160 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43166 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43199 - Bureau of Indian Education Standards, Assessments, and Accountability System Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Establishment; Nominations | |
| 82 FR 43231 - Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft of a Proposed Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS), Amending Inter-Entity Cost Provisions | |
| 82 FR 43168 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43158 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43214 - Arkansas: Final Authorization of State-Initiated Changes and Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management Program | |
| 82 FR 43185 - Arkansas: Final Authorization of State-Initiated Changes and Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Program |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations governing the importation of plants for planting to add orchid plants of the genera
Effective October 16, 2017.
Mrs. Rosemarie Rodriguez-Yanes, Regulatory Policy Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737, (301) 851-2313.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation into the United States of certain plants and plant products to prevent the introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds. The regulations in “Subpart—Plants for Planting,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations) contain, among other things, prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation.
Paragraph (a) of § 319.37-8 of the regulations requires, with certain exceptions, that plants offered for importation into the United States be free of sand, soil, earth, and other growing media. This requirement is intended to help prevent the introduction of plant pests that might be present in the growing media; the exceptions to the requirement take into account factors that mitigate plant pest risks. Those exceptions, which are found in paragraphs (b) through (e) of § 319.37-8, consider either the origin of the plants and growing media (paragraph (b)), the nature of the growing media (paragraphs (c) and (d)), or the use of a combination of growing conditions, approved media, inspections, and other requirements (paragraph (e)).
Paragraph (e) of § 319.37-8 provides conditions under which certain plants established in growing media may be imported into the United States. In addition to specifying the types of plants that may be imported, § 319.37-8(e) also:
• Specifies the types of growing media that may be used;
• Requires plants to be grown in accordance with written agreements between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the country where the plants are grown and between the foreign NPPO and the grower;
• Requires the plants to be rooted and grown in a greenhouse that meets certain requirements for pest exclusion and that is used only for plants being grown in compliance with § 319.37-8(e);
• Requires that the parent plants of the exported plants in growing media are produced from seed germinated in the production greenhouse or from mother plants that are grown and monitored for a specified period prior to export of the descendant plants;
• Specifies the sources of water that may be used on the plants, the height of the benches on which the plants must be grown, and the conditions under which the plants must be stored and packaged; and
• Requires that the plants be inspected in the greenhouse and found free of evidence of plant pests no more than 30 days prior to the exportation of the plants.
A phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the country in which the plants were grown that declares that the above conditions have been met must accompany the plants at the time of importation. These conditions have been used successfully to mitigate the risk of pest introduction associated with the importation into the United States of approved plants established in growing media.
On August 12, 2016, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending October 11, 2016. We received five comments by that date, from members of the public, a State floriculture council, and a State agriculture agency. The comments are discussed below.
One commenter supported the action but asked if there were regulations that provided compensation to stakeholders should the proposed safeguards be ineffective and result in losses.
The regulations do not contain such provisions for the payment of compensation.
One commenter raised concerns regarding the possible introduction of
We agree that, if the quarantine pests identified by the PRA were to be introduced into the United States, they could cause economic losses for domestic producers. However, for the reasons specified in the RMD and the proposed rule itself, if the provisions of this rule are adhered to, we have determined that they will mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of
One commenter noted that the environmental assessment does not indicate where in Korea the orchids are produced and whether such areas are more densely populated with the associated plant pests. The commenter suggested that the pest densities could impact the effectiveness of the prescribed sanitation protocols.
We acknowledge that such densities can vary; however, the greenhouses will have to employ phytosanitary procedures that correspond to the quarantine pest risk associated with the area in which the greenhouse is located and are adequate to address this risk, as determined by the NPPO of the Republic of Korea and APHIS.
One commenter stated that inspection 30 days prior to exportation is inadequate to insure the plants are free from plant pests even if the plants are inspected and certified as pest-free.
The orchids produced under this approach will have a higher standard of pest freedom at the time of import than similar plants produced under the requirements of only removing the growing media. Under the requirements of the operational work plan, the exported plants are grown with specific mitigation measures that are a condition of entry, verified by the NPPO. Only those plants that are grown under a higher level of safeguarding may enter as plants in growing media. Any visible plant pests at the time of inspection at the port of entry will result in the consignment being rejected and prohibited from entry into the United States.
One commenter expressed concern that allowing orchids in growing media from Korea would increase competition with U.S. orchid growers and force several small business and U.S. orchid markets to close their doors. The commenter compared this action to the importation of orchids in growing media from Taiwan, which reportedly negatively impacted orchid producers in Hawaii. Furthermore, a few commenters suggested that APHIS should do more to support the U.S. orchid industry by negotiating with foreign governments to simplify and expedite the exportation process for U.S.-produced orchids.
The Taiwan market comparison is inappropriate as there was a large established market for Taiwanese orchids prior to the rule that allowed the importation of
As for the impact of the rule allowing the importation of
In regards to improving export conditions for U.S. orchid producers, we note that importation conditions in a particular country are established by the importing country. As exporters, we can request that the conditions for importation be more equivalent to those required by the United States; however, it is the right of the importing country to establish the requirements for importation within the scope of international agreements and treaties.
One commenter stated that they would not support the importation of orchids in growing media in general until APHIS implements testing for viruses often carried by orchids. The commenter questioned the growing practices of Korean orchid producers based on the commenters' assumption that Taiwan is exporting infected orchids in growing media to the United States due to poor growing practices.
We agree with the commenter regarding the importance of preventing the introduction of viruses associated with these commodities. We assess all pests known to be in the country, including viruses, and mitigate accordingly. The PRA identified these pests to the best of our knowledge and proposed mitigation options for them if required. We do not have data to support the commenter's claim that orchids in growing media from Taiwan are carrying viruses.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule without change.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
Orchids are the single largest group of potted flowering plants sold in the United States, comprising about $266 million of the $788 million in 2014 sales for this industry. In 2014,
The proposed rule would enable Korean exporters to provide higher-valued, mature potted plants directly to wholesalers and retailers. However, such a scenario is considered unlikely, given the technical challenges and marketing costs incurred when shipping finished plants in pots. A more likely scenario is for the Republic of Korea to export immature plants as bare root plants or in approved growing media to U.S. nurseries to grow and sell as finished plants.
The United States imported more than 6,760 metric tons (MT) of live orchids valued at about $83 million in 2014, with Taiwan supplying almost 84 percent. The Republic of Korea expects to export to the United States from 2 to 5 million
We expect the quantity of orchids in approved growing media imported from the Republic of Korea will also be limited because of the U.S. market's competitive environment. Import levels would depend on the ability of Korean producers and exporters to cover their production, transportation, and marketing costs given U.S. market prices. U.S. nurseries that purchased the Korean orchids in approved growing media would benefit from their improved quality and reduced production time in comparison to bare-rooted plants. The final rule would increase competition for U.S. producers and importers of immature
U.S. orchid producers numbered 158 in 2012. Of those producers, it is unknown how many are small entities. Given the relatively small quantity of orchid plants in approved growing media that we expect to be imported from the Republic of Korea, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
An EA and FONSI have been prepared for the final rule. The EA provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation into the continental United States of
The EA and FONSI were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The EA and FONSI may be viewed on the
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(xiii) Plants for planting of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the drainage holes on the lower skin panel in the center wing box between frames (FR) 42 and FR46. This AD requires repetitive rotating probe inspections for cracking of the trellis boom drainage holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the holes of the inner pump, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 19, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0196, dated September 30, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:
DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD F-1992-106-132R7 to require certain inspections and modifications which addressed JAR/FAR [Joint Aviation Requirements/Federal Aviation Regulations] 25-571 requirements, related to damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure. Following the Extended Design Service Goal activities as part of the Structure Task Group for the Airbus A310 program, EASA published AD 2007-0053, which replaced DGAC France AD F-1992-106-132R7.
After EASA issued AD 2007-0053R1, the thresholds and the intervals of Airbus Service Bulletins (SB) A310-57-2050 and A310-57-2064 were updated, prompting EASA to issue AD 2009-0057 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-10-06, Amendment 39-16687 (76 FR 27227, May 11, 2011)] and [EASA] AD 2007-0053 was revised (R2) accordingly. EASA AD 2009-0057 also required the accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus SB A310-57-2048 at Revision 01.
After EASA issued AD 2009-0057, in the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage campaign, new analysis has indicated the need for additional work included in Revision 03 of Airbus SB A310-57-2050.
For the reason described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2009-0057, which is superseded, and requires inspection and corrective actions as specified in Airbus SB A310-57-2050 Revision 04.
Required actions include a repetitive rotating probe inspection for cracking of certain holes in the stringers bottom, inner pumps, and the trellis boom; and corrective actions,
The compliance times vary depending on airplane configuration. The earliest initial inspection compliance time is 11,400 total flight cycles or 57,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. The latest initial compliance time is 38,700 total flight cycles or 77,500 total flight hours, whichever occurs first. The shortest repetitive interval is 6,200 flight cycles or 31,200 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated
We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2011-10-06, Amendment 39-16687 (76 FR 27227, May 11, 2011) (“AD 2011-10-06”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the drainage holes on the lower skin panel in the center wing box between frames (FR) 42 and FR46. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of trellis boom drainage holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the holes of the inner pump, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wings.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before exceeding the applicable threshold or grace period, whichever occurs later, as defined in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015, accomplish the rotating probe inspection for cracking of the trellis boom drainage holes, the holes in the stringers bottom, and the holes of the inner pump, as applicable, and do all applicable corrective actions, as specified in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those defined in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015.
(1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015, specifies a grace period “after receipt of the Service Bulletin without exceeding previous Service Bulletin revision values,” this AD requires compliance within the specified grace period after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in
Accomplishing corrective actions on an airplane as required by paragraph (g) or (h)(2) of this AD does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the actions required by paragraph (h) of AD 2011-10-06.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 03, dated December 19, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0196, dated September 30, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2050, Revision 04, dated March 13, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-23-20, which applied to certain Airbus Model A300, A300 B4-600, and A300 B4-600R series airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. AD 2004-23-20 required, for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections for cracking around certain attachment holes, installation of new fasteners for certain airplanes, and follow-on corrective actions if necessary. AD 2004-23-20 also required modifying certain fuselage frames, which terminated certain repetitive inspections. This new AD reduces certain compliance times, expands the applicability, and requires an additional repair on certain modified airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the material used to manufacture the upper frame feet was changed and negatively affected the fatigue life of the frame feet. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 19, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004) (“AD 2004-23-20”). AD 2004-23-20 applied to certain Airbus Model A300 B2, A300 B4, A300 B4-600, and A300 B4-600R series airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0249, dated December 14, 2016; corrected January 10, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”); to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 F4-605R, A300 F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:
During an inspection in accordance with Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) 53-15-54 on an A300-600 aeroplane, Frames (FR) 43, FR44, FR45 and FR46 were found cracked between stringer (STGR) 24 and STGR30 on the aeroplane right hand side. FR45 was also found cracked on the aeroplane left hand side.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this potential unsafe condition and improve the fatigue life of the upper frame feet fittings, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-6125 to provide instructions for expansion of the most sensitive fastener holes between FR41 and FR46. DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD F-2004-002 (EASA approval 2003-2108) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2004-23-20] to require the structural modification defined in SB A300-53-6125 Revision 03 (Airbus modification 12168).
[French] AD F-2004-002 was subsequently superseded by EASA AD 2013-0295 to amend the inspection programme in this area as provided in SB A300-53-6122 (which is now obsolete and replaced by ALI task 531558, published in the [Airworthiness Limitation Section] ALS Part 2 Revision 01 dated 07 August 2015).
Since EASA AD 2013-0295 was issued, a new investigation was conducted in the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage study. Airbus revised the thresholds for the accomplishment of the instructions defined in SB A300-53-6125 and issued SB A300-53-6178 to provide modification instructions to improve the fatigue life of upper frame feet fittings on aeroplane[s] on which Airbus modification (mod) 12168 or Airbus SB A300-53-6125 was embodied.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains some requirements of EASA AD 2013-0295, which is superseded, and requires modification of the upper frame feet fittings from FR41 to FR46 [repetitive inspections are not retained].
This [EASA] AD is republished to correct a typographical error in the compliance time * * *.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 04, dated March 17, 2015; and Service Bulletin A300-53-6178, dated March 17, 2015. The service information describes procedures for the modification of certain upper frame feet fittings. These documents are distinct since they apply to airplanes in different configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
The actions that were required by AD 2004-23-20 and retained in this AD take about 90 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $4,000 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2004-23-20 is $11,650 per product.
We also estimate that it will take up to 109 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost up to $6,070 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be up to $996,775, or up to $15,335 per product.
We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2004-23-20, Amendment 39-13875 (69 FR 68779, November 26, 2004) (“AD 2004-23-20”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 F4-605R, A300 F4-622R, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the material used to manufacture the upper frame feet was changed and negatively affected the fatigue life of the frame feet. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the center section of the fuselage, which could result in a ruptured frame foot and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except for airplanes identified in table 2 to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: At the times specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, depending on the average flight time (AFT), as defined in paragraph (i) of this AD, modify the upper frame feet fittings, including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 04, dated March 17, 2015 (“SB A300-53-6125, Revision 04”). Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Where Airbus SB A300-53-6125, Revision 04, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes identified in table 2 to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: At the applicable compliance time specified in table 2 to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, modify the upper frame feet fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6178, dated March 17, 2015. Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6178, dated March 17, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC”: Before further flight,
Prior to exceeding 24,100 total flight cycles or 42,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first after doing the modification required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: Contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); for instructions to do additional actions, and do those actions at the compliance times stated therein.
For the purpose of this AD, to establish the applicable AFT for the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, divide the total accumulated flight hours counted from take-off to touch-down by the total accumulated flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.
This paragraph provides credit for the modification required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3), or (j)(4) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, dated November 8, 2000, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 01, dated June 13, 2003, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2004-23-20.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 02, dated February 25, 2005, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 03, dated September 13, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 12168 has been embodied in production: The modification required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD is not required by this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0249, dated December 14, 2016; corrected January 10, 2017; for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425- 227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6125, Revision 04, dated March 17, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6178, dated March 17, 2015.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 19, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0128, dated June 23, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the DA [Dassault Aviation] Falcon 900EX type design are included in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0051 [which corresponds to AD 2014-16-26, Amendment 39-17950 (79 FR 51077, August 27, 2014) (“2014-16-26”)] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in DA Falcon 900EX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113874) at revision 12.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 14 of Falcon 900EX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113874) (hereafter referred to as “the ALS” in this AD), which contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The ALS introduces, among others, the following new tasks:
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0051, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual. The service information describes procedures, maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the AMM. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 70 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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2014-16-26, Amendment 39-17950 (79 FR 51077, August 27, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-26”).
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1 through 96 inclusive, and serial numbers 98 through 119 inclusive, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual, or 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
(1) The term “LDG” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total airplane landings.
(2) The term “FH” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight hours.
(3) The term “FC” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight cycles.
(4) The term “M” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means months.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all the requirements of AD 2014-16-26.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0128, dated June 23, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 14, dated November 2015, of the FALCON 900EX Maintenance Manual.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 19, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0127, dated June 23, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the DA [Dassault Aviation] Mystère-Falcon 900 type design are included in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0053 [which corresponds with AD 2016-01-16, Amendment 39-18376 (81 FR 3320, January 21, 2016) (“AD 2016-01-16”)] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in DA Mystère-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113873) at revision 20.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 22 of Mystère-Falcon 900 AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113873) (hereafter referred to as “the ALS” in this [EASA] AD), which contains new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The ALS introduces, among others, the following new tasks:
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0053, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual. This service information describes procedures, maintenance tasks, and airworthiness limitations specified in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the AMM. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 65 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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2016-01-16, Amendment 39-18376 (81 FR 3320, January 21, 2016) (“AD 2016-01-16”).
This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 1, 2015.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual, is within the applicable times specified in the maintenance manual, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD.
(1) The term “LDG” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total airplane landings.
(2) The term “FH” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight hours.
(3) The term “FC” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means total flight cycles.
(4) The term “M” in the “First Inspection” column of any table in the service information means months.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2016-01-16.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0127, dated June 23, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 22, dated December 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600R and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 B4-603, B4-622, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that a section of the fuselage structure above the forward cargo door is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires an inspection for cracks of the fastener and tooling holes at certain locations and a check of the diameter of the holes, and repair or modification of the affected fuselage structure if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 19, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600R and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 B4-603, B4-622, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0178, dated September 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600R and Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes; Model A300 B4-603, B4-622, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:
In the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) analysis, some structural
This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the fuselage structural integrity.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-2145 and SB A300-53-6187 to provide instructions for structural reinforcement of the fuselage frames (FR) between FR20 Right Hand side (RH) and FR25 RH and the frame couplings between stringer (STGR) 20 RH and STGR23 RH, hereafter collectively referred to as `the affected fuselage structure' in this [EASA] AD.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires accomplishment of a one-time special detailed inspection (SDI) of the fastener and tooling holes, and modification of the affected fuselage structure.
The required actions include a rototest inspection for cracks of the fastener and tooling holes at certain locations and a check of the diameter of the holes, and repair or modification of the affected fuselage structure if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a rototest inspection for cracks of the fastener and tooling holes at certain locations, a check of the diameter of the holes, repair, and modification of the affected fuselage structure by reinforcing the frames between right hand (RH) frame (FR) 20 RH and FR25 RH, or FR21 RH and FR25 RH, depending on the configuration; and reinforcing the frame couplings between stringer (STGR) 20 RH and STGR23 RH.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a rototest inspection for cracks of the fastener and tooling holes at certain locations, a check of the diameter of the holes, repair, and modification of the affected fuselage structure by reinforcing the frames between right hand FR20 RH and FR25 RH; and reinforcing the frame couplings between STGR20 RH and STGR23 RH.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 132 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 transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A300 B4-603 and A300 B4-622 airplanes.
(2) Model A300 B4-605R and A300 B4-622R airplanes.
(3) Model A300 F4-605R and A300 F4-622R airplanes.
(4) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(5) Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that a section of the fuselage structure above the forward cargo door is subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of these airplanes due to the failure of certain structural components.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding 42,500 flight cycles since the first flight of the airplane, do a check of the diameter of the fastener holes and tooling holes and a rototest inspection for cracks of all holes of removed fasteners and the tooling holes at the locations specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as applicable.
If any condition specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD is found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Concurrently with the repair, unless the approved repair instructions specify otherwise, modify the affected structure, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as applicable.
(1) Any crack is found during the rototest inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2) Any hole diameter greater than or equal to the maximum starting hole diameter specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as applicable, is found during the check required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
If, during the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no crack is found and the hole diameter is less than the maximum starting hole diameter specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as applicable: Before further flight, modify the affected fuselage structure, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016; as applicable.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0178, dated September 12, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6187, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2145, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This AD was prompted by analysis of the cam support assemblies of the main cargo door (MCD) that indicated the repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections required by the existing maintenance program are not adequate to detect cracks before two adjacent cam support assemblies of the MCD could fail. This AD requires repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the cam support assemblies of the MCD and replacement if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 19, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016, affects only Boeing factory and Boeing converted freighters, but the proposed AD extends the applicability to all Model 727 airplanes, including the ones that have been converted by non-Boeing STCs.
We infer that the commenter is requesting that the actions of the service information only be required for Model 727 airplanes identified in the Effectivity paragraph of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016. We agree that the applicability of the NPRM includes some airplanes that do not have the identified unsafe condition. The unsafe condition does not apply to Model 727 airplanes that do not have a MCD. Therefore, we have revised this AD to apply to Model 727 series airplanes equipped with a MCD.
We disagree that the AD applicability should be limited to airplanes identified in the Effectivity paragraph of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016, which only identifies Boeing factory and Boeing-converted freighters. Cam support assemblies having an affected part number, as specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, could be installed during original aircraft manufacture, or during passenger to freighter modification. We expect that the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016, can be accomplished on airplanes that are not identified in that service information. However, if an operator cannot accomplish the required actions in the service information due to the airplane configuration, or prefers to use different service information that is specific to their design, they can request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with paragraph (j) of this AD.
Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to supersede AD 80-08-10 R1. Boeing stated that AD 80-08-10 R1 mandates MCD cam support assemblies having part numbers (P/Ns) 69-23588-1 and 69-23588-2 as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-52A124. Boeing explained that the NPRM is adding cam support assemblies having P/Ns 69-23588-1 and 69-23588-2 to the list in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016. Boeing asserted that the addition of these components to the list of affected parts would mean that the operators have to perform high frequency eddy current inspection of cam support assemblies having P/Ns 69-23588-1 and 69-23588-2 as specified in AD 80-08-10 R1 and perform ultrasonic inspection of the same components as specified in the NPRM. Boeing explained that cracking initiates at the bottom of the lubrication hole inside the cam support fitting lug and the cracking is not visible until it breaks to the surface of the lug. Therefore, the subsurface detection capability of the ultrasonic inspection provides a more reliable inspection.
We partially agree with Boeing's request to supersede the inspections which are required by AD 80-08-10 R1. These inspections will overlap with the newly mandated repetitive inspections. We disagree with the request to revise this AD to supersede AD 80-08-10 R1. Instead, we have added paragraph (i) to this AD to state that completion of the initial inspection and all applicable replacements required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 80-08-10 R1, for that airplane only. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD from “before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles” to “before the accumulation of 18,000 door flight cycles. If the door flight cycles are not known, use total airplane flight cycles.” Boeing explained that this change would provide relief for operators that have converted freighters by delaying the required inspection for the MCDs that have been in service less than 18,000 total door flight cycles, but are installed on the airplanes that have more than 18,000 total airframe flight cycles.
We agree with Boeing's request. For the airplanes that have been converted to freighters, the compliance time for the initial inspection should be based on the number of cycles that the cam support assembly has been in service. We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD accordingly.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an ultrasonic inspection of the cam support assemblies of the MCD for cracking, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 45 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective October 19, 2017.
This AD affects AD 80-08-10 R1, Amendment 39-3830 (45 FR 46343, July 10, 1980).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with a main cargo door (MCD).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by analysis of the cam support assemblies of the MCD that indicated the repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections required by the existing maintenance program are not adequate to detect cracks before two adjacent cam support assemblies of the MCD could fail. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the cam support assemblies of the MCD. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the MCD and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Inspect the cam support assemblies of the MCD to determine whether part number(P/N) 69-23588-1, 69-23588-2, 69-23588-5, 69-23588-6, 69-23588-9, or 69-23588-10 is installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number(s) of the cam support assemblies of the MCD can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles since installation of the MCD. If the flight cycles since installation of the MCD are not known, use total airplane flight cycles.
(2) Within 1,771 flight cycles or 27 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any cam support assembly of the MCD having P/N 69-23588-1, 69-23588-2, 69-23588-5, 69-23588-6, 69-23588-9, or 69-23588-10 is determined to be installed: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, do an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking of the affected cam support assemblies of the MCD; and do all applicable replacements; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016. Do all applicable replacements before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016.
Accomplishment of the initial inspection and all applicable replacements required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 80-08-10 R1, Amendment 39-3830 (45 FR 46343, July 10, 1980), for that airplane only.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5239; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-52A0151, dated February 12, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
United States Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) is issuing a final rule to amend its Privacy Act exemption regulations for the system of records titled, “DOJ Insider Threat Program Records,” JUSTICE/DOJ-018. Specifically, DOJ is exempting the records maintained in JUSTICE/DOJ-018 from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act. The listed exemptions are necessary to avoid interference with efforts to detect, deter, and/or mitigate insider threats. This document addresses public comments on the proposed rule and codifies the claimed exemptions.
This final rule is effective October 16, 2017.
Laurence Reed, DOJ Insider Threat Program Manager, United States Department of Justice, Insider Threat Prevention and Detection Program, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, 202-357-0165,
Executive Order 13587,
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act), on June 5, 2017, DOJ issued a System of Records Notice (SORN) in the
In its “DOJ Insider Threat Program Records” SORN and NPRM, published on June 5, 2017, the Department invited public comment. The period for public comment closed on July 5, 2017. The Department received one comment, which addressed elements of both the SORN and the NPRM. The Department has closely reviewed this comment and the following discussion responds to the comment.
The comment primarily focused on the scope of information collected by the system of records, the risk of compromise of such information, and the disclosures described in the SORN's “routine uses.” As to the information collected by the system, the Department has determined that such information is necessary to create and maintain an effective insider threat program that complies with presidential mandates and federal law. The comment requests on page 7 that DOJ “maintain only records that are relevant and necessary to detecting and preventing inside threats,” yet correctly points out on page 3 that the categories of records in the system include “relevant” counterintelligence and security databases and files, “relevant Unclassified and Classified network information,” and “relevant Human Resources” databases and files. DOJ is a law enforcement agency. While it is not always possible to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for law enforcement and intelligence purposes, as explained further below, DOJ requires its employees and agents to take reasonable steps designed to ensure collection of relevant and necessary information.
As to the risk of compromise, DOJ understands the increase in data breaches across the public and private sectors. The Department has established appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity. The Department has implemented, and regularly assesses and works to strengthen, privacy and security controls required under federal law, regulations and policies, including the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, standards issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and OMB guidelines (
The Department has also determined that the disclosures described in the SORN's routine uses are necessary to create and maintain an effective insider threat program that complies with presidential mandates and federal law. In sum, the Department has thoroughly reviewed its program and determined that the SORN accurately describes the existence and character of the system of records, in accordance with the Privacy Act. For these reasons, no alterations will be made to the SORN and the system of records will operate in compliance with the representations made therein.
The comment also raised objections to some of the exemptions proposed in the NPRM. While the comment noted a general objection to claiming any of the exemptions allowed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), specific objections were only raised for a few of the exemptions claimed regarding 5 U.S.C. 552a(e), detailing agency requirements. The Department addresses those objections in the following paragraphs.
The comment asserted that the effect of claiming exemptions to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), (e)(4)(I), and (e)(4)(G) and (H) would be to diminish DOJ's legal accountability, stating that “DOJ claims the authority to collect any information it wants without disclosing where it came from or even acknowledging its existence.” Contrary to the comment, the Department follows the letter and spirit of the Privacy Act in claiming these exemptions as a law enforcement and national security-focused agency. The Department maintains a constant commitment to protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans.
Regarding 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), the Department only collects information it is legally authorized to collect. Moreover, as explained below, it is not always possible to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for law enforcement and intelligence purposes. The relevance and utility of certain information that may have a nexus to insider threats may not always be fully evident until and unless it is vetted and matched with other information lawfully maintained by the DOJ. Nonetheless, DOJ requires its employees and agents to take reasonable steps designed to ensure collection of relevant and necessary information.
Regarding 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I), the DOJ Insider Threat Program Records system of records notice disclosed to the greatest extent practicable the record source categories for the information in the system. To the extent that Section 552a(e)(4)(I) is interpreted to require more detail regarding the record sources in this system than has already been published in the SORN, exemption from this provision is necessary to protect the sources of law enforcement and intelligence information and to protect the privacy and safety of witnesses and informants and others who provide information to the Department.
The comment states that the Department is exempting itself from providing individuals access to and amendment of records in the system, which is under 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), and also implies the Department is exempting itself from providing notice to individuals regarding the procedures for access to and amendment of records, under 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and (H). The Department proposed to exempt itself from the access and amendment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) because providing access and amendment rights to such records could compromise or lead to the compromise of information classified to protect national security; disclose information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; disclose or lead to disclosure of information that would allow a subject to avoid detection or apprehension; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential sources, or witnesses. Because the Department proposed to exempt itself from these access and amendment requirements, it logically follows that the Department also proposed to exempt itself from the requirement to publish notice to individuals of how to avail themselves of these access and amendment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G) and (H).
Nonetheless, in the SORN for the Insider Threat Program Records, DOJ provided notice of procedures to request access and amendment because, to the extent that an access or amendment request relates to information outside the scope of permissible exemptions, DOJ will comply with applicable requirements. Also, when DOJ compliance with an access or amendment request would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the purpose of the system to detect, deter, and/or mitigate insider threats, the DOJ may waive the applicable exemption in its sole discretion and provide appropriate access or amendment.
The comment asserts that the Department claiming an exemption to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5),
The Department has concluded that, in light of the reasonable steps DOJ investigators and analysts are required to take in collecting and maintaining the information needed to support DOJ's mission and investigations, and in light of the compelling need to facilitate thorough and expeditious investigations and activities to deter, detect, and mitigate insider threats, exemption from the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) is appropriate for the Insider Threat Program Records System.
Because insiders have heightened access, and could potentially use that access, either wittingly or unwittingly, to do harm to the security of the United States, the Department must be particularly vigilant in its detection and investigation of insider threats. Nonetheless, the Department takes seriously its obligations to protect the privacy of Americans. As to the claimed exemptions, where DOJ determines that compliance with an exempted Privacy Act provision would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the purpose of this system to detect, deter, and/or mitigate insider threat, the applicable exemption may be waived by the Department in its sole discretion.
Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of Information, Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, 28 CFR part 16 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(a) The Department of Justice Insider Threat Program Records (JUSTICE/DOJ-018) system of records is exempted from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2) and (3); (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I); (e)(5) and (8); (f) and (g) of the Privacy Act. These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k). Where DOJ determines compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the purpose of this system to detect, deter, and/or mitigate insider threats, the applicable exemption may be waived by the DOJ in its sole discretion.
(b) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3), the requirement that an accounting be made available to the named subject of a record, because this system is exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). Also, because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures of records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any insider threat-related interest in the individual by the DOJ or agencies that are recipients of the disclosures. Revealing this information could compromise ongoing, authorized law enforcement and intelligence efforts, particularly efforts to identify and/or mitigate insider threats. Revealing this information could also permit the record subject to obtain valuable insight concerning the information obtained during any investigation and to take measures to impede the investigation,
(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification requirements because this system is exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) as well as the accounting of disclosures provision of subsection (c)(3). The DOJ takes seriously its obligation to maintain accurate records despite its assertion of this exemption, and to the extent it, in its sole discretion, agrees to permit amendment or correction of DOJ records, it will share that information in appropriate cases.
(3) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(8), (f) and (g) because these provisions concern individual access to and amendment of law enforcement, intelligence and counterintelligence, and counterterrorism records, and compliance with these provisions could alert the subject of an authorized law enforcement or intelligence activity about that particular activity and the interest of the DOJ and/or other law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Providing access could compromise or lead to the compromise of information classified to protect national security; disclose information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of another's personal privacy; reveal a sensitive investigative or intelligence technique; disclose or lead to disclosure of information that would allow a subject to avoid detection or apprehension; or constitute a potential danger to the health or safety of law enforcement personnel, confidential sources, or witnesses.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for law enforcement and intelligence purposes. The relevance and utility of certain information that may have a nexus to insider threats may not always be fully evident until and unless it is vetted and matched with other information necessarily and lawfully maintained by the DOJ.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) and (3) because application of these provisions could present a serious impediment to efforts to detect, deter and/or mitigate insider threats. Application of these provisions would put the subject of an investigation on notice of the investigation and allow the subject an opportunity to engage in conduct intended to impede the investigative activity or avoid apprehension.
(6) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the extent that this subsection is interpreted to require more detail regarding the record sources in this system than has been published in the
(7) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for authorized law enforcement and intelligence purposes, including efforts to detect, deter, and/or mitigate insider threats, due to the nature of investigations and intelligence collection, the DOJ often collects information that may not be immediately shown to be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete, although the DOJ takes reasonable steps to collect only the information necessary to support its mission and investigations. Additionally, the information may aid DOJ in establishing patterns of activity and provide criminal or intelligence leads. It could impede investigative progress if it were necessary to assure relevance, accuracy, timeliness and completeness of all information obtained throughout the course and within the scope of an investigation. Further, some of the records in this system may come from other domestic or foreign government entities, or private entities, and it would not be administratively feasible for the DOJ to vouch for the compliance of these agencies with this provision.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD
This rule is effective on October 16, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0259. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25996), the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve these rules for SIP strengthening purposes based on a determination that they satisfied the applicable CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received one comment letter dated July 6, 2017, from Adriano Martinez of Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club.
Several of Earthjustice's comments pertain to CAA requirements concerning reasonably available control technology (RACT). As we explained in our June 6, 2017 proposed rule, we are not reviewing the submitted rule revisions with respect to RACT requirements in this action.
The commenter also fails to identify any statutory basis, other than the CAA RACT requirement, for its argument that the EPA cannot approve the revised RECLAIM rules. To the extent the commenter intended to argue that the alleged deficiencies in the revised RECLAIM program constitute RACT deficiencies under the CAA, those comments are outside the scope of this action for the reasons stated earlier in this preamble, and the EPA will respond to them as part of our final action on the SCAQMD's separate ozone RACT SIP submission. Comments regarding BARCT and command-and-control equivalence requirements under state law also are not germane to this action, as the CAA does not require the EPA to determine that the revised RECLAIM rules comply with state law BARCT requirements before approving these SIP revisions.
As we explained in our proposed rule and related technical support document (TSD), the revised RECLAIM program is projected to achieve significant environmental benefits compared to the version that the EPA previously approved into the SIP.
Earthjustice's stated concern about “the problem of NO
Alleged inconsistency with state law is relevant to the EPA in the context of our SIP review if it undermines the legal authority by the state or relevant local or regional agency to carry out the SIP, but alleged interference with compliance with state law requirements generally is not a bar to EPA approval. The EPA evaluates compliance with federal law (specifically, the CAA), not state law. California Air Resources Board (CARB) has provided the EPA with the necessary assurances that the District has the legal authority to carry out the revised RECLAIM rules.
For the reasons provided in our proposed rule and explained further above, we conclude that the revised RECLAIM regulations satisfy the applicable CAA requirements for SIP revisions.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the revised RECLAIM rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these revised rules into the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the SCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Oxides.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(337) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
(
(342) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(388) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(404) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(491) Amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on March 17, 2017 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Montana. On September 19, 2016, the Governor of Montana submitted to the EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year maintenance plan for the Missoula, Montana area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year period beyond the original redesignation. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.
This rule is effective on November 13, 2017 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by October 16, 2017. If adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0339 at
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104,
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions and organize your comments;
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
• Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Missoula area was designated as nonattainment and classified as a “moderate” CO area, with a design value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts per million (ppm) (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). On May 27, 2005, the Governor of Montana submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the Missoula CO nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Along with this request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a) maintenance plan which established an attainment year of 2000, and demonstrated that the area would maintain the 8-hour CO NAAQS through 2020. The EPA approved the State's redesignation request, CAA section 175A(a) maintenance plan and base year emissions inventory on August 17, 2007 (72 FR 46158).
Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA Section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.
The 8-hour CO NAAQS—9.0 ppm—is attained when such value is not exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1). The Missoula area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1992 to the present.
The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity Determinations. Below, the EPA describes our evaluation of each of these elements as it pertains to the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan.
The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan contains an emissions inventory for the base year 2010. The emission inventory is a list, by source category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the Missoula CO maintenance area on a typical winter day in 2010.
The EPA considers the maintenance demonstration requirement to be satisfied for areas that qualify for and are using the LMP option. As mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). The EPA maintains that if an
In the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan, the State adopted an alternative monitoring strategy for Missoula that was previously approved by the EPA to satisfy this requirement for both the Billings CO Maintenance Area (80 FR 16571, March 30, 2015) and Great Falls CO Maintenance Area (80 FR 17331, April 1, 2015). The State adopted the alternative monitoring strategy to conserve resources by discontinuing the gaseous CO ambient monitor in the Missoula CO maintenance area. In place of the gaseous ambient monitor, the State's alternative method relies on rolling 3-year Average Daily Traffic (ADT) vehicle counts collected from permanent automatic traffic recorders (devices installed into a street's pavement to continuously collect data) in each maintenance area.
Since 2006, no Missoula monitor has registered a design value greater than 2.7 ppm, roughly 30% of the NAAQS.
The alternative monitoring strategy utilizes ADT vehicle counts collected from permanent automatic traffic recorders in the Missoula CO maintenance area to determine average monthly traffic during the traditional high CO concentration season of November through February (the winter season). The State will compare the latest rolling 3-year ADT volumes during the winter season to the 2008-2011 baseline ADT volumes (see Table 2) that correlate to the low CO monitored values during that period (see Table 1).
If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% higher than the monthly average value from the November 2008-February 2011 baseline period of 19,892, the State, in cooperation with the Missoula City-County Health Department (MCCHD), will reestablish CO ambient monitoring in Missoula the following high season (November-February). If the CO design value in the following high season has not increased from the baseline mean by an equal or greater rate at which the ADT has increased, and the monitor values remain at or below 50% of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (2nd max concentration ≤4.5 ppm), the monitor may be removed and the ADT counts will continue to be relied upon to determine compliance with the NAAQS. This process will be repeated each time the rolling 3-year ADT increases by a factor of 25% (
40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient monitors “on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not compromise
The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan stated that a trend of increasing CO concentrations or a single 8-hour average of 9.5 ppm or greater would trigger a voluntary, local process by the Missoula Air Pollution Control Board to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures. The plan also indicated that a violation of the 8-hour CO NAAQS (two or more values of 9.5 ppm or greater during a calendar year) would trigger mandatory implementation of contingency measures.
As noted in the previous section, the alternative monitoring strategy in the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan requires reestablishment of a CO monitor in Missoula if traffic levels (responsible for 71% of CO emissions in Missoula) increase from the 2008-2011 baseline by a factor of 25% and provides that any reestablished monitors showing values above 50% of the NAAQS cannot be removed. Therefore, the EPA finds that CO emissions in Missoula are very unlikely to increase to the point of an 8-hour NAAQS exceedance (the trigger for voluntary contingency measures) without that exceedance being observed by a gaseous monitor, as such an increase would most likely coincide with a significant increase in traffic volume.
The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan retains two contingency measures adopted as part of the area's fully approved SIP. The first expands the oxygenated fuel program to other months besides November, December, January and February, as described in Rule 10.110 of the Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program. The second further restricts woodstove burning as described in Rule 9.601 of the Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program.
The revised Missoula Maintenance Plan indicates that contingency measures will be implemented within 60 days of notification by MDEQ and the EPA that the Missoula area has violated the 8-hour CO NAAQS. Upon notification of a CO NAAQS violation, MCCHD will review relevant information and implement one or both of the contingency measures to correct the violation. In the event that violations continue to occur after contingency measures have been implemented, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are corrected.
We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.
Under the LMP guidance, MVEBs generally are treated as not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While the EPA's LMP guidance does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity without submitting a MVEB. According to the LMP guidance, it is unreasonable to expect that a LMP area will experience so much growth in that period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.
When the year 2020 is no longer within the timeframe of the transportation plan (
However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of transportation conformity determinations will be required for transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation and timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113, respectively). In addition, projects in LMP areas will be required to meet the applicable criteria for localized CO hot spot analyses to satisfy “project level” conformity determinations (40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123), which must also incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available (40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively).
Our approval of the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan affects future CO RTP and TIP transportation conformity determinations as prepared by the Missoula MPO, the Montana Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration.
We are approving the revised Missoula Maintenance Plan submitted on September 19, 2016. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA requirements, and we have determined it is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year maintenance period out to 2027.
We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements; this action 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 Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the 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 does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) Revisions to the Montana State Implementation Plan, revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Missoula, as submitted by the Governor on September 19, 2016.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
During a review of Arkansas' regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified State-initiated changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have determined that these changes are minor and satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization and are authorizing the State-initiated changes through this direct final action.
This regulation is effective November 13, 2017, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment on this regulation by the close of business October 16, 2017. If the EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2016-0680 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this authorization and codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Phone number (214) 665-8533. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.
Alima Patterson, EPA Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permit Section (RPM), Multimedia Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Phone number: (214) 665-8533 Email address:
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the EPA to authorize States to operate their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA uses the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs” to provide notice of the authorization status of State programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of the State statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement. This rule also codifies in the regulations the prior approval of Arkansas' hazardous waste management program and incorporates by reference authorized provisions of the State's statutes and regulations.
The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the State-initiated changes and incorporate by reference the State's hazardous waste program without a prior proposal because we believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose them. Unless we receive written comments which oppose the authorization in this codification document during the comment period, the decision to authorize Arkansas' State-initiated changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose the authorization, we will publish a document in the
States which have received final authorization from the EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. As the Federal program changes, the States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State hazardous waste programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. States can also initiate their own changes to their hazardous waste program and these changes must then be authorized.
We conclude that Arkansas' revisions to its authorized program meet all of the
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Arkansas subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Arkansas has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the statutes and regulations for which Arkansas is being authorized by this direct final action are already effective and are not changed by this action.
The EPA did not publish a proposal before this rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the Proposed Rules section of this
If the EPA receives comments that oppose the authorization of the State-initiated changes in this codification document, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a timely document in the
In addition to the authorization of the rules described above in this document, the purpose of this
Arkansas initially received final authorization on January 11, 1985, effective January 25, 1985 (50 FR 1513), to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on August 23, 1985, via EPA letter, effective August 23, 1985; March 27, 1990 (55 FR 11192), effective May 29, 1990; September 18, 1991 (56 FR 47153), effective November 18, 1991; October 5, 1992 (57 FR 45721), effective December 4, 1992; October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52674), effective December 13, 1993; October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51115), effective December 21, 1994; June 20, 1995 (60 FR 32112), effective August 21, 1995; April 24, 2002 (67 FR 20038), effective June 24, 2002, as amended June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538); August 15, 2007 (72 FR 45663), effective October 15, 2007, as amended June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538); June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36538), effective August 27, 2010; August 10, 2012 (77 FR 47779), effective October 9, 2012; October 2, 2014 (79 FR 59438), effective December 1, 2014; October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64678), effective December 30, 2014; January 29, 2016 (81 FR 4961), effective March 29, 2016; and August 11, 2016. (81 FR 53025), effective October 11, 2016.
The State has made amendments to the provisions listed in the table which follows. These amendments clarify the State's regulations and make the State's regulations more internally consistent. The State's laws and regulations, as amended by these provisions, provide authority which remains equivalent to and no less stringent than, and not broader in scope than the Federal laws and regulations. These State-initiated changes satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 271.21(a). We are granting Arkansas final authorization to carry out the following provisions of the State's program in lieu of the Federal program. These provisions are analogous to the indicated RCRA regulations found at 40 CFR as of July 1, 2014. The Arkansas provisions are from the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, adopted on September 25, 2015, effective October 18, 2015.
This authorization does not affect the status of State permits and those permits issued by the EPA because no new substantive requirements are a part of these revisions.
Arkansas is not authorized to carry out its Hazardous Waste Program in Indian Country within the State. This authority remains with EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian Country.
Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the CFR. Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA to authorize State hazardous waste management programs to operate in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste management regulatory program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 3007 and 3008 of RCRA and any other applicable statutory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the authorized State program and State requirements that can be Federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the authorized program in each State.
The EPA incorporated by reference Arkansas' then authorized hazardous waste program effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52674), August 21, 1995 (60 FR 32112), August 27, 2010 (75 FR 36538), December 1, 2014 (79 FR 59438), and March 29, 2016 (81 FR 4961). Note that at 79 FR 59443, the State agency acronym should be referenced as “(ADEQ)” with regard to the State's Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA. In this document, the EPA is revising subpart E of 40 CFR part 272 to include the authorization revision actions effective October 11, 2016 (81 FR 53025).
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Arkansas rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 272 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
The purpose of this
The EPA is incorporating by reference the Arkansas authorized hazardous waste management program in subpart E of 40 CFR part 272. Section 272.201 incorporates by reference Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste statutes and regulations. Section 272.201 also references the statutory provisions (including procedural and enforcement provisions) which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements, and the Program Description, which are approved as part of the hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C of RCRA.
The EPA retains its authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in authorized States. With respect to these actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than any authorized State analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Arkansas
The public needs to be aware that some provisions of Arkansas' hazardous waste management program are not part of the Federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:
(1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));
(2) Federal rules for which Arkansas is not authorized, but which have been incorporated into the State regulations because of the way the State adopted Federal regulations by reference;
(3) Unauthorized amendments to authorized State provisions;
(4) New unauthorized State requirements; and
(5) Federal rules for which Arkansas is authorized but which were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 08-1144, June 27, 2014).
State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not part of the RCRA authorized program and the EPA will not enforce them. Therefore, they are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.201(c)(3) lists the Arkansas regulatory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. “Broader in scope” provisions cannot be enforced by the EPA; the State, however, may enforce such provisions under State law.
Additionally, Arkansas' hazardous waste regulations include amendments which have not been authorized by the EPA. Since the EPA cannot enforce a State's requirements which have not been reviewed and authorized in accordance with RCRA section 3006 and 40 CFR part 271, it is important to be precise in delineating the scope of a State's authorized hazardous waste program. Regulatory provisions that have not been authorized by the EPA include amendments to previously authorized State regulations as well as certain Federal rules and new State requirements.
Arkansas has adopted but is not authorized for the following Federal rules published in the
Arkansas has adopted and was authorized for the Federal Exclusion of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas rule which has since been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 08-1144; June 27, 2014): The gasification exclusion rule was published on January 2, 2008 (73 FR 57) and added 40 CFR 260.10 “Gasification” and revised 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i).
State regulations that are not incorporated by reference in this action at 40 CFR 272.201(c)(1), or that are not listed in 40 CFR 272.201(c)(2) (“legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program”), 40 CFR 272.201(c)(3) (“broader in scope”), or 40 CFR 272.201(c)(4) (“unauthorized State amendments”), are considered new unauthorized State requirements. These requirements are not Federally enforceable.
With respect to any requirement pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet been authorized, the EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for these provisions.
The EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 272 to include HSWA requirements and prohibitions that are implemented by the EPA. Section 3006(g) of RCRA provides that any HSWA requirement or prohibition (including implementing regulations) takes effect in authorized and not authorized States at the same time. A HSWA requirement or prohibition supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by the EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985). The EPA has the authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including authorized States, until the States become authorized for such requirement or prohibition. Authorized States are required to revise their programs to adopt the HSWA requirements and prohibitions, and then to seek authorization for those revisions pursuant to 40 CFR part 271.
Instead of amending the 40 CFR part 272 every time a new HSWA provision takes effect under the authority of RCRA section 3006(g), the EPA will wait until the State receives authorization for its analog to the new HSWA provision before amending the State's 40 CFR part 272 incorporation by reference. Until then, persons wanting to know whether a HSWA requirement or prohibition is in effect should refer to 40 CFR 271.1(j), as amended, which lists each such provision.
Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirement implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, the EPA can only enforce the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs. The EPA will not codify those State requirements until the State receives authorization for those requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This rule incorporates by reference Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste management regulations and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely incorporates by reference existing State hazardous waste management program
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The requirements being codified are the result of Arkansas' voluntary participation in the EPA's State program authorization process under RCRA Subtitle C. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Water pollution control, Water supply.
This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b), EPA is granting final authorization under 40 CFR part 271 to the State of Arkansas for revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and is amending 40 CFR part 272 as follows.
Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) The binder entitled “EPA-Approved Arkansas Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program”, dated October 2016.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2)
(i) Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 4, Business and Commercial Law, Chapter 75: Section 4-75-601(4) “Trade Secret”.
(ii) Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 1: Section 8-1-107.
(iii) Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2: Sections 8-7-204 (except 8-7-204(e)(3)(B)), 8-7-205 through 8-7-214, 8-7-217, 8-7-218, 8-7-220, 8-7-222, 8-7-224, 8-7-225(b) through 8-7-225(d), and 8-7-227.
(iv) Arkansas Resource Reclamation Act of 1979, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3: Sections 8-7-302(3), 8-7-303 and 8-7-308.
(vi) Remedial Action Trust Fund Act of 1985, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 5: Sections 8-7-503(6) and (7), 8-7-505(3), 8-7-507, 8-7-508, 8-7-511 and 8-7-512.
(vii) Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1967, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 25, State Government, Chapter 19: Sections 25-19-103(1), 25-19-105, 25-19-107.
(viii) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, as amended September 25, 2015, effective October 18, 2015, Chapter One; Chapter Two, Sections 1, 2, 3(a), 3(b)(3), 4, 260.2, 260.20(c) through (f), 261 Appendix IX, 270.7(h) and (j), 270.10(e)(8), 270.34, 19, Chapter Three, Sections 21 and 22; Chapter Five, Section 28.
(ix) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission, Regulation No. 7, Civil Penalties, July 24, 1992.
(x) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission, Regulation No. 8, Administrative Procedures, February 12, 2009.
(3)
(i) Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2: Section 8-7-226.
(ii) Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, as amended September 25, 2015, effective October 18, 2015, Chapter Two, Sections 6, 262.13(c), 262.26(d), 263.10(e), 263.13, 264.71(e), and 265.71(e).
(4)
(ii) The Federal rules listed in the following table are not delegable to States. Arkansas has adopted these provisions and left the authority to the EPA for implementation and enforcement.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979, as amended, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2: Sections 8-7-202, 8-7-203, 8-7-215, 8-7-216, 8-7-219, 8-7-221, 8-7-223 and 8-7-225(a).
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated (A.C.A.), 2011 Replacement, as amended by the 2015 Supplement, Title 8, Environmental Law, Chapter 10, Subchapter 3: Section 8-10-301(d).
Copies of the Arkansas statutes that are incorporated by reference are available from LexisNexis, 9443 Springboro Pike, Miamisburg, Ohio 45342; Phone: (800) 833-9844; Web site:
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology (APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 23, Hazardous Waste Management, as amended September 25, 2015 effective October 18, 2015. Please note that the 2015 APC&E Commission Regulation No. 23, is the most recent version of the Arkansas authorized hazardous waste regulations. For a few provisions, the authorized versions are found in the APC&E Commission Regulation 23, effective January 21, 1996, March 23, 2006, June 13, 2010, or August 12, 2012. Arkansas made subsequent changes to these provisions but these changes have not been authorized by EPA. The provisions from the January 21, 1996, March 23, 2006, June 13, 2010, or August 12, 2012 regulations are noted below.
Chapter Two, Sections 3(b) introductory paragraph; 3(b)(2); 3(b)(4); Section 260—Hazardous Waste Management System—General—260.1; 260.3; 260.10 (except the definitions of “consolidation”, “gasification”, and the phrase “a written permit issued by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department authorizing a person to transport hazardous waste (Hazardous Waste Transportation Permit), or” in the definition for “permit”; 260.11; 260.20 (except 260.20(c) through (f); 260.21; 260.23; 260.30 through 260.33; 260.40; and 260.41.
Section 261—Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste -261.1; 261.2; 261.3; 261.4(a) (except the phrase “gasification (as defined in § 260.10 of this Regulation),” in 261.4(a)(12)(i); 261.4(b) through (h); 261.5; 261.6 (except (a)(5)); 261.7 through 261.11; 261.20 through 261.24; 261.30 through 261.33; 261.35; 261.39 through 261.41; and Appendices I, VII, and VIII.
Section 262—Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste—262.10 (except 262.10(d)); 262.11; 262.12; 262.13 (except 262.13(c)); 262.20; 262.22 through 262.25; 262.26 (except 262.26(d)); 262.27; 262.30; 262.31 through 262.35; 262.40; 262.41 (except 262.41(e) and (f)); 262.41(e) (except references to PCBs) (January 21, 1996); 262.42; 262.43; 262.50 through 262.58; 262.60 (except 262.60(e)); 262.70; 262.200 through 262.216; and Appendix I.
Section 263—Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste—263.10 (except 263.10(d) and (e)); 263.11; 263.12; 263.20 (except 263.20(g)(4)); 263.21; 263.22; 263.25; 263.30; and 263.31.
Section 264—Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities—264.1; 264.3; 264.4; 264.10; 264.11; 264.12 (except 264.12(a)(2)); 264.13 through 264.19; 264.20(a) through (c); 264.30 through 264.35; 264.37; 264.50 through 264.56; 264.70; 264.71 (except 264.71(a)(3), (d), and (e)); 264.72 through 264.74; 264.75; 264.76(a); 264.77; 264.90 through 264.101; 264.110 through 264.120; 264.140; 264.141 (except the definition of “captive insurance” at 264.141(f)); 264.142; 264.143 (except the last sentence of 264.143(e)(1)); 264.144; 264.145 (except the last sentence of 264.145(e)(1)); 264.146; 264.147 (except the last sentences of 264.147(a)(1)(i) and 264.147(b)(1)(ii)); 264.148; 264.151; 264.170 through 264.179; 264.190 through 264.200; 264.220 through 264.223; 264.226 through 264.232; 264.250 through 264.254; 264.256 through 264.259; 264.270 through 264.273; 264.276; 264.278 through 264.283; 264.300 through 264.304; 264.309; 264.310; 264.312(a); 264.313; 264.314; 264.314(a)(4) (June 13, 2010); 264.315 through 264.317; 264.340 through 264.345; 264.347; 264.351; 264.550 through 264.555; 264.570 through 264.575; 264.600 through 264.603; 264.1030 through 264.1036; 264.1050 through 264.1065; 264.1080 through 264.1090; 264.1100 through 264.1102; 264.1200 through.1202; and Appendices I, IV, V, and IX.
Section 265—Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities—265.1; 265.4; 265.10; 265.11; 265.12 (except 265.12(a)(2)); 265.13 through 265.19; 265.30 through 265.35; 265.37; 265.50 through 265.56; 265.70; 265.71 (except 265.71(a)(3), (d), and (e)); 265.72 through 265.75; 265.76(a); 265.77; 265.90 through 265.94; 265.110 through 265.121; 265.140; 265.141 (except the definition of “captive insurance” at 265.141(f)); 265.142; 265.143 (except the last sentence of 265.143(d)(1)); 265.144; 265.145; 265.146; 265.147 (except the last sentences of 265.147(a)(1) and 265.147(b)(1)); 265.148; 265.170 through 265.174; 265.176 through 265.178; 265.190 through 265.202; 265.220 through 265.226; 265.228 through 265.231; 265.250 through 265.260; 265.270; 265.272; 265.273; 265.276; 265.278 through 265.282; 265.300 through 265.304; 265.309; 265.310; 265.312(a); 265.313; 265.314; 265.314(a)(4) (March 23, 2006); 265.315; 265.316; 265.340; 265.341; 265.345; 265.347; 265.351; 265.352; 265.370; 265.373; 265.375; 265.377; 265.381 through 265.383; 265.400 through 265.406; 265.430; 265.440 through 265.445; 265.1030 through 265.1035; 265.1050 through 265.1064; 265.1080 through 265.1090; 265.1100 through 265.1102; 265.1200 through 265.1202; Appendix I; and Appendices III through VI.
Section 266—Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities—266.20 through 266.23; 266.70(a); 266.70(b) introductory paragraph through (b)(2) (August 12, 2012); 266.70(c) and (d); 266.80 (except items 6 and 7 to the 266.80(a) table); 266.100 through 266.112; 266.200 through 266.206; 266.210; 266.220; 266.225; 266.230; 266.235; 266.240; 266.245; 266.250; 266.255; 266.260; 266.305; 266.310; 266.315; 266.320; 266.325; 266.330; 266.335; 266.340; 266.345; 266.350; 266.355; 266.360; and Appendices I through XIII.
Section 267—Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating Under a Standardized Permit—267.1 through 267.3; 267.10 through 267.18; 267.30 through 267.36; 267.50 through 267.58; 267.70 through 267.76; 267.90; 267.101; 267.110 through 267.113; 267.115 through 267.117; 267.140 through 267.143; 267.147 through 267.151; 267.170 through 267.177; 267.190 through 267.204; and 267.1100 through 267.1108.
Section 268—Land Disposal Restrictions—268.1; 268.2 through 268.4, 268.7; 268.9; 268.13; 268.14; 268.20, 268.30 through 268.39; 268.40 (except 268.40(e)(1)—(4) and 268.40(i)); 268.41; 268.42 (except 268.42(b)); 268.43; 268.45; 268.46; 268.48 through 268.50; and Appendices III, IV, VI through IX and XI.
Section 270—Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit Program—270.1 through 270.6; 270.7 (except 270.7(h) and (j)); 270.10 (except 270.10(e)(8)); 270.11 through 270.33; 270.40; 270.41; 270.42; 270.42 Appendix I; 270.43; 270.50; 270.51; 270.60 through 270.68; 270.70 through 270.73; 270.79; 270.80; 270.85; 270.90; 270.95; 270.100; 270.105; 270.110;
Section 273—Standards for Universal Waste Management—273.1 through 273.4; 273.5 (except 273.5(b)(3)); 273.6; 273.8 through 273.20; 273.30 through 273.40; 273.50 through 273.56; 273.60; 273.61; 273.62; 273.70 (except 273.70(d)); 273.80; and 273.81.
Section 279—Standards for the Management of Used Oil—279.1; 279.10; 279.11; 279.12; 279.20 through 279.24; 279.30 through 279.32; 279.40 through 279.47; 279.50 through 279.67; 279.70 through 279.75; 279.80; 279.81; and 279.82(a).
Copies of the Arkansas regulations that are incorporated by reference are available from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Web site at
In rule document 2017-19208 appearing on page 42610 in the issue of Monday, September 11, 2017, make the following corrections:
1. In the first column, under the
2. In the first column, under the
3. In the second column, in the first full paragraph, in the seventh, eighth, sixteenth and twenty sixth line “September 1, 2017” should read “September 15, 2017”.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS adjusts the 2017 Winter II commercial scup quota and per trip Federal landing limit. This action is intended to comply with Framework Adjustment 3 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan that established the rollover of unused commercial scup quota from the Winter I period to the Winter II period. This notice is intended to inform the public of this quota and trip limit change.
Effective November 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.
NMFS published a final rule in the
For 2017, the initial Winter II quota is 2,929,762 lb (1,329 mt). The best available landings information indicates that 2,231,152 lb (1,012 mt) remain of the 8,291,190 lb (3,761 mt) of Winter I quota. Consistent with Framework 3, the full amount of unused 2017 Winter I quota is being transferred to Winter II, resulting in a revised 2017 Winter II quota of 5,160,914 lb (2,341 mt). Because the amount transferred is greater than 2,000,000 lb (907 mt), the Federal per trip possession limit will increase from 12,000 lb (5,443 kg) to 18,000 lb (8,165 kg), as outlined in the final rule that established the possession limit and quota rollover procedures for this year, published on December 28, 2015 (80 FR 80689).
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this in-season adjustment because it would be contrary to the public interest. If implementation of this in-season action is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the objective of the fishery management plan to achieve the optimum yield from the fishery could be compromised; deteriorating weather conditions during the latter part of the fishing year will reduce fishing effort and could prevent the annual quota from being fully harvested. This would conflict with the agency's legal obligation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to achieve the optimum yield from a fishery on a continuing basis, resulting in a negative economic impact on vessels permitted to fish in this fishery. Moreover, the rollover process and potential changes in trip limits were already outlined in the 2016 to 2018 specifications published December 28, 2015, that were provided for notice and comment rulemaking.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Modification of fishing seasons.
NMFS announces seven inseason actions in the ocean salmon fisheries. These inseason actions modified the commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border.
The effective dates for the inseason actions are set out in
Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.
In the 2017 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (82 FR 19630, April 28, 2017), NMFS announced the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2017, and 2018 salmon fisheries opening earlier than May 1, 2018. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions). The state management agencies that participated in the consultations described in this document were: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The inseason actions reported in this document affected fisheries north and south of Cape Falcon. All times mentioned refer to Pacific daylight time.
All other restrictions and regulations remained in effect as announced for the 2017 ocean salmon fisheries and 2018 salmon fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2018 (82 FR 19631, April 28, 2017) and as modified by prior inseason actions.
The RA determined that the best available information indicated that Chinook salmon abundance forecasts, Chinook and halibut landings, and expected fishery effort supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory actions was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory actions was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. These actions comply with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (82 FR 19631, April 28, 2017), the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and regulations implementing the FMP, 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon and halibut catch and effort projections were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information, ensuring that conservation objectives and Endangered Species Act consultation standards are not exceeded. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of these actions would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the FMP and the current management measures.
These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-76C helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting the engine collective position transducer (CPT). This proposed AD is prompted by reports of wear of the CPT that has resulted in several One Engine Inoperative (OEI) incidents. The proposed actions are intended to detect and prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email
Nick Rediess, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7159; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
We propose to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-76C helicopters with a Turbomeca, S.A., Arriel 2S1 or Arriel 2S2 engine and with a CPT part number (P/N) 76900-01821-104 installed. This proposed AD is prompted by 20 reports of One Engine Inoperative (OEI) incidents resulting from wear of a CPT. One of these incidents resulted in a rejected takeoff to an unprepared site. A CPT provides signals to the Digital Engine Control Units (DECU) to anticipate power demand. A worn CPT can send an erroneous signal to the DECU. This condition can cause a power split between the two engines and a subsequent OEI condition, which can result in an emergency landing.
Accordingly, this proposed AD would require initial and recurring inspections of the CPTs, and depending on the outcome of the inspections, replacing the CPT. The proposed actions are intended to detect wear of a CPT prior to it causing an OEI condition and possible emergency landing.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.
We reviewed Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 76-73-8, Revision A, dated December 4, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8A), which specifies a one-time inspection of total resistance, linearity resistant movement, excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs using CPT Text Box P/N 76700-40009-042.
We also reviewed Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016 (TR 73-07), which specifies procedures for removing, installing, and adjusting the CPTs, and inspections of total resistance, linearity resistant movement, excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs. TR 73-07 also divides the procedures by
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 Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue, dated August 21, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8). ASB 76-73-8 contains the same procedures as ASB 76-73-8A; however, ASB 76-73-8A updates Sikorsky's contact information for submitting a purchase order.
We also reviewed Sikorsky SA 4047-76C-2-1, Temporary Revision No. 5-181, dated August 21, 2015 (TR 5-181); Task 5-20-00 of Sikorsky Airworthiness Limitations and Inspection Requirements, Publication No. SA 4047-76C-2-1, Revision 24, dated December 15, 2015 (Task 5-20-00); and Section 73-22-04 of Chapter 73 Engine Fuel and Control, of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Revision 31, dated December 15, 2015 (Section 73-22-04). TR 5-181 specifies adding CPT inspections referenced in Section 73-22-04 to the 300-hour inspection checklist contained in Task 5-20-00.
We reviewed Sikorksy Safety Advisory No. SSA-S76-11-0002, dated May 17, 2011. This service information provides precautionary instructions to minimize hazardous situations that might result from an unreliable CPT.
We reviewed Sikorsky SSI No. 76-96, dated August 19, 2016, which specifies procedures to modify CPT Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042 and re-identify it as P/N 76700-40009-043. This one-time modification reduces the instructions to inspect the CPT and improves the inspection accuracy.
We also reviewed Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24, 2015, and SSI No. 76-87A, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015. These SSIs specify a one-time inspection of total resistance, linearity resistant movement, excitation voltage, and differential voltage of the CPTs using CPT Text Box P/N 76700-40009-042.
This proposed AD would require initial and recurring inspections of each CPT by measuring resistance, linearity resistance movement, and differential voltage, and depending on the outcome of the inspections, replacing the CPT.
Sikorsky ASB 76-73-8A and TR 73-07 specify using and returning Sikorsky's CPT data sheet to Sikorsky. This proposed AD would not require using Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or returning a data sheet to Sikorsky. TR 73-07 specifies adjusting the CPT transducers. This proposed AD would not require adjusting the CPT transducers. TR 73-07 specifies returning a failed CPT to Sikorsky. This proposed AD would not require returning a failed CPT to Sikorsky.
We consider this proposed AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 90 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. The inspections would take about 3.75 work-hours for an estimated cost of $319 per helicopter and $28,710 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing a CPT would take about 6 work-hours and parts would cost $3,072 for an estimated replacement cost of $3,582.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by Reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-76C helicopters, certificated in any category, with a Turbomeca, S.A., Arriel 2S1 or Arriel 2S2 engine with an engine collective position transducer (CPT) part number 76900-01821-104 installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a CPT. This condition could result in a reduction in power to one engine resulting in an annunciated One Engine Inoperative (OEI) condition and subsequent emergency landing.
We must receive comments by November 13, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 130 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(i) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the measured resistance is not within tolerance by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(8)(b), of Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Revision A, dated December 4, 2015 (ASB 76-73-8A), except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.
(ii) Measure the linearity resistance movement of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if there is a linear abnormality or change in resistance that is not within tolerance by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.D.(1) through D.(14)(b), of ASB 76-73-8A, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky. Examples of linear abnormalities are depicted in Figure 3 of ASB 76-73-8A.
(iii) Measure the differential voltage of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the measured voltage is not within tolerance by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.E. through 3.G.(1) of ASB 76-73-8A, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or submit a data sheet to Sikorsky.
(2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS:
(i) For helicopters using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-042:
(A) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraphs 4.B.(11) of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Temporary Revision No. 73-07, dated August 17, 2016 (TR 73-07), except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.
(B) Measure the linearity resistance movement of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the movement exceeds tolerance by following paragraphs 4.B.(12)(a) through 4.B.(13)(f) of TR 73-07, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.
(C) Measure the differential voltage of each CPT by following paragraphs 4.B.(14) through 4.B.(15)(h) of TR 73-07, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet. If the maximum voltage is greater than 100 millivolts or the minimum voltage is less than −100 millivolts, replace the CPT.
(ii) For helicopters using Test Box P/N 76700-40009-043:
(A) Measure resistance of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraph 5.B.(11) of TR 73-07, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.
(B) Measure the resistance linearity of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraph 5.B.(12) of TR 73-07, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.
(C) Measure the differential voltage of each engine CPT and replace the CPT if the resistance is not within tolerance by following paragraphs 5.B.(13)(a) through B.(13)(k) of TR 73-07, except you are not required to use Sikorsky's CPT data sheet or return a failed CPT to Sikorsky.
Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the procedures specified in Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue, dated August 21, 2015; Sikorsky Special Service Instruction SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24, 2015; or Sikorsky Special Service Instruction SSI No. 76-87, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Nick Rediess, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7159; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
Sikorsky S-76 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 76-73-8, Basic Issue, dated August 21, 2015; Sikorsky SA 4047-76C-2-1, Temporary Revision No. 5-181, dated August 21, 2015; Task 5-20-00 of Sikorsky Airworthiness Limitations and Inspection Requirements, Publication No. SA 4047-76C-2-1, Revision 24, dated December 15, 2015; Section 73-22-04 of Chapter 73 Engine Fuel and Control, of Sikorsky Maintenance Manual, SA 4047-76C-2, Revision 31, dated December 15, 2015; Sikorksy Safety Advisory No. SSA-S76-11-0002, dated May 17, 2011; Sikorsky Special Service Instruction (SSI) No. 76-96, dated August 19, 2016; Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, dated July 24, 2015; and Sikorsky SSI No. 76-87, Revision A, dated August 21, 2015, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7600, Engine Controls.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Petition for rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) safflower oil as a source of omega-6 fatty acids in dry food for adult cats in the maintenance life stage.
The food additive petition was filed on May 1, 2017.
For access to the docket, go to
Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6283,
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2302) has been filed by Arcadia Biosciences Inc., 202 Cousteau Pl., Suite 200, Davis, CA 95618. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573 (21 CFR part 573)
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(r) because it is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In addition, the petitioner has stated that to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Request for comments.
This document requests comments on including non-cargo-carrying tractor-high mount automobile semi-trailer combination in the definition of automobile transporter in the FHWA's guidance.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
•
For questions about the Definition of Automobile Transporters, contact Crystal Jones, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations, (202) 366-2976, or by email at
You may retrieve a copy of the notice through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
Federal laws and regulations pertaining to vehicles that are classified as automobile transporters, and providing for a minimum vehicle length and allowable overhang lengths for these configurations, support the safe and efficient movement of autos by truck through States and across State lines. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31111(a)(1) and 23 CFR 658.5, the term “automobile transporter” means any vehicle combination designed and used for the transport of assembled highway vehicles, including truck camper units. Federal regulations classify automobile transporters as specialized equipment and identify three possible configurations of automobile transporters: Traditional, “low boys,” and stinger steered. 23 CFR 658.13(e)(1)(i). As provided in 23 CFR 658.13(e), and in the definition of a “Tractor or Truck Tractor” at 23 CFR 658.5, automobile transporters may carry vehicles on the power unit behind the cab and on an over-cab rack.
If a vehicle is classified as an automobile transporter, no State shall impose an overall length limitation of less than 65 feet on traditional automobile transporters, including “low boys,” or less than 80 feet on stinger-steered automobile transporters. 49 U.S.C. 31111(b)(1)(G). All length provisions regarding automobile transporters are exclusive of front and rear cargo overhang. For traditional automobile transporters, no State shall impose a front overhang limitation of less than 3 feet or a rear overhang limitation of less than 4 feet. 23 CFR 658.13(e)(1)(ii). For stinger-steered automobile transporters, no State shall impose a front overhang limitation of less than 4 feet or a rear overhang limitation of less than 6 feet. 49 U.S.C. 31111(b)(1)(G).
Other truck tractor-semitrailer combinations (not specifically defined as automobile transporters) are subject to the length provisions of 23 CFR 658.13(c). Under this regulatory provision, States determine the maximum length limits for semitrailers operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer combination; but no State shall prohibit the use of trailers or semitrailers of such dimensions as those that were in actual and lawful use in such State on December 1, 1982, as set out in appendix B to 23 CFR 658.
It is a longstanding FHWA policy position, established through guidance, that to qualify as an automobile transporter as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31111(a)(1) and be treated as specialized equipment as described in 23 CFR 658.13(e)(1)(i), both traditional and stinger-steered automobile transporter combinations must be capable of carrying cargo on the power unit/tractor. Because a truck-tractor in high-mount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination is not capable of carrying vehicles on the power unit, FHWA's current policy interpretation is that such a vehicle combination may not be considered an automobile transporter subject to the length allowances in 23 CFR 658.13(e)(1)(ii).
In response to the recent inquiries, FHWA has considered the definitions and length provisions that apply to automobile transporters and language in the Surface Transportation Act of 1982 section 411(f), which states “a tractor and semitrailer engaged in the transportation of automobiles may transport motor vehicles on part of the power unit,” and finds that it may be within the Department's current legislative authority to interpret this language to include auto transporter combinations that are not capable of carrying vehicles on the power unit, such as a high-mount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination, without additional action from Congress.
Defining the high-mount combination as an automobile transporter would trigger the use of the same length allowances that currently apply to a traditional automobile transporter. In doing so, Federal laws would govern the operation of this vehicle on certain roadways, and no State would be able to impose an overall length limitation of less than 65 feet or a front overhang limitation of less than 3 feet or a rear overhang limitation of less than 4 feet for this vehicle combination.
The FHWA is requesting comments from affected stakeholders and the public regarding interpreting the statutory and regulatory language to include a high-mount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination as an automobile transporter and treating the combination as specialized equipment. Comments are requested on the following questions related to defining a high-mount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination as an automobile transporter:
• How will the inclusion of a high-mount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination in the definition of automobile transporter impact the flow of Interstate commerce?
• Are there safety issues with a high-mount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination as an automobile transporter as it relates to the operation of this vehicle configuration on the National Network?
• What are implementation implications (
• What State laws are currently in place regarding a highmount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination? Please provide legal citations, if applicable.
• Are there States that allow the high-mount, truck-tractor-semitrailer combination to operate under the same length provisions as a traditional automobile transporter?
• Is there any other information relating to safety, vehicle productivity, or infrastructure preservation relevant to these questions?
49 U.S.C. 31111 and Section 411 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-424)
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Request for nominations and notice of intent to establish committee.
The U.S. Department of the Interior is announcing its intent to establish the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) Standards, Assessments, and Accountability System Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee) to advise the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) through the BIE on a proposed rule to revise the Adequate Yearly Progress regulation and invite Tribes whose students attend BIE-funded schools operated by either the BIE or by the Tribe through a contract or grant who would be affected by the final rule to nominate a representative for membership on the Committee. The BIE also invites nominations for Committee members who will adequately represent the interests that are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed rule such as: Students enrolled, or parents of students enrolled at the 174 BIE-funded schools, school teachers and administrators, Tribes, and Indian communities served by these schools. The BIE also solicits comments on the proposal to establish the Committee.
Comments regarding the intent to establish this Committee and nominations for Committee members must be submitted no later than October 16, 2017.
Send written comments to Ms. Juanita Mendoza, Bureau of Indian Education, by any of the following methods:
• (Preferred method) Email to:
• Mail, hand-carry or use an overnight courier service to Ms. Juanita Mendoza, Bureau of Indian Education, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 4657, Washington, DC 20240.
Ms. Juanita Mendoza, Bureau of Indian Education; telephone: (202) 208-3559.
In 2005, BIA promulgated regulations at 25 CFR part 30 that require BIE to use the accountability system of the State in which a BIE-funded school is located. There are BIE-funded schools in 23 different States; and each State has its own accountability system. As a result, each State system produced student achievement data that cannot be directly compared with data from other States. This created problems for the BIE in identifying under-performing schools and in directing resources effectively.
On November 9, 2015, BIE published a notice of intent requesting nominations for a negotiated rulemaking committee to recommend revisions to the existing regulations for BIE's accountability system (80 FR 69161). In that notice of intent, the BIE solicited nominations from Tribes whose students attend BIE-funded schools operated either by the BIE or by the Tribe through a contract or grant, to nominate Tribal representatives to serve on the Committee and Tribal alternates to serve when the representative is unavailable.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Pub. L. 114-95, then became law, requiring an update to the subject, scope, and issues that the Committee would address. On April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22039), BIE announced its intent to expand the scope of the Committee and reopened the comment and nomination period, requesting comments and nominations by May 31, 2016. The request for nominations was extended on August 17, 2016 (81 FR 54768). On January 18, 2017 a notice of proposed membership, request for nomination and a request for comments was published (82 FR 5473).
Taking into consideration the interests of the new Administration in participating in this process, the Department has decided that a new negotiated rulemaking process, as required by the ESEA, should begin.
Under ESEA Section 8204(c)(2), as amended, Tribes have the authority to waive, in part or in whole, the definitions of standards, assessments, and accountability system established by the Secretary in accordance with this rulemaking. The BIE encourages Tribal self-determination in Native education; and where a Tribal governing body or school board determines it to be appropriate, encourages the development of alternative standards, assessments, or accountability systems.
The Committee would be charged, consistent with ESEA Section 8204, with developing proposed regulations for implementation of the Secretary's
The ESSA reauthorizes and amends the ESEA. ESSA Section 8007 amends ESEA Section 8204, and directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, if so requested, to use a negotiated rulemaking process to develop regulations for implementation of the Secretary of the Interior's obligation to define the standards, assessments, and an accountability system that will be utilized at BIE-funded schools. The regulations, along with any necessary revisions to part 30 generally, will replace the existing 25 CFR part 30 and will define the standards, assessments, and an accountability system consistent with ESEA, for BIE-funded schools on a national, regional, or Tribal basis. The regulations will be developed in a manner that considers the unique circumstances and needs of such schools and the students served by such schools. These definitions will be implemented in the 2018-2019 school year.
ESEA Section 8204 also provides that if a Tribal governing body or school board of a BIE-funded school determines the requirements established by the Secretary of the Interior are inappropriate, they may waive, in part or in whole, such requirements. Where such requirements are waived, the Tribal governing body or school board shall, within 60 days, submit to the Secretary of the Interior a proposal for alternative standards, assessments, and an accountability system, if applicable, consistent with ESEA Section 1111. The proposal must take into account the unique circumstances and needs of the school or schools and the students served. The proposal will be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education, unless the Secretary of Education determines that the standards, assessments, and accountability system do not meet the requirements of ESEA Section 1111. Additionally, a Tribal governing body or school board of a BIE-funded school seeking a waiver may request, and the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education will provide, technical assistance.
This document is published in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1996 (NRA) (5 U.S.C. 561
In negotiated rulemaking, recommended provisions of a proposed rule are developed by a committee composed of at least one representative of the Federal Government and representatives of the interests that will be significantly affected by the rule. Decisions are made by consensus, which means unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on the Committee, unless the Committee agrees to define “consensus” to mean a general but not unanimous concurrence, or agrees upon another specified definition. 5 U.S.C. 562(2)(A) and (B).
As part of the negotiated rulemaking process, the BIE has identified interests potentially affected by the rulemaking under consideration, including students enrolled at 174 BIE-funded schools, parents of such students, school administrators, Tribes, and the Indian communities served by these schools. By this notice of intent, the BIE is soliciting: (1) Comments on its proposal to form a negotiated rulemaking committee; and (2) nominations for Committee members who will adequately represent the interests that are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed rule.
Following the receipt of nominations and comments, BIE will publish a second notice in the
Following the second
Under 5 U.S.C. 563, the head of the agency is required to determine that the use of the negotiated rulemaking procedure is in the public interest.
In making such a determination, the agency head must consider certain factors. Taking these factors into account, the Secretary, through the authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has determined that a negotiated rulemaking is in the public interest because:
1. A rule is needed. The ESEA directs the Secretary to conduct a negotiated rulemaking pursuant to the NRA.
2. A limited number of identifiable interests will be significantly affected by the rule. The 174 BIE-funded schools, students enrolled at these schools, school teachers and administrators, Tribes, and Indian communities served by these schools will be significantly affected by this review and the recommendations made by this Committee.
3. There is a reasonable likelihood that the Committee can be convened with a balanced representation of persons who can adequately represent the interests discussed in item 2, above, and who are willing to negotiate in good faith to attempt to reach a consensus on provisions of a proposed rule.
4. There is a reasonable likelihood that the Committee will reach consensus on a proposed rule within a fixed period of time.
5. The use of negotiated rulemaking will not delay the development of a proposed rule because time limits will be placed on the negotiation. We anticipate that these negotiations will expedite a proposed rule and ultimately the acceptance of a final rule.
6. The BIE is making a commitment to ensure that the Committee has sufficient resources to complete its work in a timely fashion.
7. The BIE, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the legal obligations of the Agency, will use the consensus report of the Committee as the basis for a proposed rule for public notice and comment.
In compliance with FACA and NRA, the BIE will use the following
The Committee will be formed and operated in full compliance with the requirements of FACA and NRA, and specifically under the guidelines of its charter.
The Committee is expected to meet approximately 3-5 times and will last 2-3 days each. The initial meeting will be in person; some later meetings may be held by teleconference and/or web conference. The Committee's work is expected to occur over the course of 6-12 months. However, the Committee may continue its work for up to two years.
Because of the scope and complexity of the tasks at hand, Committee members must be able to invest considerable time and effort in the negotiated rulemaking process. Committee members must be able to attend all Committee meetings, work on Committee work groups, consult with their constituencies between Committee meetings, and negotiate in good faith toward a consensus on issues before the Committee. Because of the complexity of the issues under consideration, as well as the need for continuity, the Secretary reserves the right to replace any member who is unable to participate in the Committee's meetings.
Responsibility for expenses under 5 U.S.C. 568(c) is as follows:
Members of a negotiated rulemaking committee shall be responsible for their own expenses of participation in such committee, except that an Agency may, in accordance with Section 7(d) of the FACA, pay for a member's reasonable travel and per diem expenses, expenses to obtain technical assistance, and a reasonable rate of compensation, if—
1. Such member certifies a lack of adequate financial resources to participate in the Committee; and
2. The agency determines that such member's participation in the Committee is necessary to assure an adequate representation of the member's interest.
The BIE commits to pay the reasonable travel and per diem expenses of Committee members, if appropriate, under the NRA and Federal travel regulations.
The Secretary is seeking nominations for representatives to serve on the Committee who can represent the interests of students enrolled at the 174 BIE-funded schools, parents of such students, school administrators, Tribes, and the Indian communities served by these schools, and who have a demonstrated ability to communicate well with groups about the interests they will represent. The Committee membership will consist of approximately 15, but not more than 25 members in accordance with the NRA.
Non-Federal Committee membership must:
• Include only representatives of the interests described above;
• Comply with the FACA.
41 CFR 102-3.30 requires the membership of a FACA committee to be fairly balanced in its member in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed. In making membership decisions, the Secretary shall consider whether the interest represented by a nominee will be affected significantly by the final products of the Committee, which may include report(s) and/or proposed regulations; whether that interest is already adequately represented by nominees; and whether the potential addition would adequately represent that interest.
Federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.
The BIE will provide sufficient administrative and technical resources for the Committee to complete its work in a timely fashion. The BIE, with the help of the facilitator, will prepare and provide a final report of any issues on which the Committee reaches consensus.
At the first meeting of the Committee, a neutral facilitator will provide training on negotiated rulemaking, interest-based negotiations, and consensus-building. In addition, at the first meeting, Committee members will make organizational decisions concerning protocols, scheduling, and facilitation of the Committee.
Under Section 562 of the NRA, “interest” means, with respect to an issue or matter, multiple parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be affected in a similar manner.' The BIE has identified the interests to be significantly affected by this new rule to include students enrolled at 174 BIE-funded schools, parents of such students, school administrators, Tribes, and the Indian communities served by these schools. The BIE is accepting comments identifying other interests that may be significantly affected by the final products of the Committee, which may include report(s) and/or proposed regulations, until the date listed in the
The BIE solicits nominations from representatives of the interests identified above and an alternate to serve when the representative is unavailable.
Each nomination is expected to include a nomination for a primary representative and an alternate who can fulfill the obligations of membership should the primary representative be unable to attend. The Committee membership should reflect a diversity of interests, and nominees should only be of representatives and alternates who will:
• Have knowledge of school standards, assessments and accountability systems;
• Have relevant experience as past or present superintendents, principals, teachers, or school board members;
• Be able to coordinate, to the extent possible, with other interests who may not be represented on the Committee;
• Be able to represent one or more of the specified interests with the authority to embody the views of that interest, communicate with interested constituents, and have a clear means to reach agreement on behalf of the interest(s);
• Be able to negotiate effectively on behalf of the interest(s) represented;
• Be able to commit the time and effort required to attend and prepare for meetings; and
• Be able to collaborate among diverse parties in a consensus-seeking process.
The BIE will consider nominations for representatives only if they are nominated through the process identified in this Notice of Intent. The BIE will not consider any nominations that we receive in any other manner. If you submitted a nomination in response
Nominations must include the following information about each nominee:
(1) A current letter from the entity representing one of the interest(s) identified supporting the nomination of the individual to serve as a representative for the Committee;
(2) A resume reflecting the nominee's qualifications and experience in Indian education; resume to include the nominee's name, Tribal affiliation (if applicable), job title, major job duties, employer, business address, business telephone and fax numbers (and business email address, if applicable);
(3) The interest(s) to be represented by the nominee (see section V, part F) and whether the nominee will represent other interest(s) related to this rulemaking; and
(4) A brief description of how the nominee will represent the views of the identified interest(s), communicate with constituents, and have a clear means to reach agreement on behalf of the interest(s) they are representing.
(5) A statement on whether the nominee is only representing one interest or whether the expectation is that the nominee represents a specific group of interests.
To be considered, nominations must be received by the close of business on the date listed in the
For the above reasons, I hereby certify that the Bureau of Indian Education Standards, Assessments, and Accountability System Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is in the public interest.
20 U.S.C. 6301; 5 U.S.C. 561; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on a revision to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing a conditional approval of one rule. This revision consists of updates to provisions governing the issuance and banking of Emission Reduction Credits for use in the review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by October 16, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0130 at
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-3534,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
On April 22, 2013, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted an amended rule, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Rule 2-4), for approval as a revision to the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP under the CAA. Regulation 2 contains the District's air quality permitting programs. Rule 2-4 contains requirements applicable to the banking of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) for use in the District's air quality permitting programs.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by BAAQMD and submitted to the EPA by CARB, which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.
On June 26, 2013, Regulation 2, Rule 4 was deemed to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. The submittal includes evidence of public notice and adoption of the amended rule. While we can only take action on the most recently submitted version of each regulation (which supersedes earlier submitted versions), we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
The existing SIP-approved banking rule in the Bay Area consists of the rule identified in Table 2. This rule includes requirements for the generation and use of ERCs in nonattainment areas.
Consistent with the District's stated intent to have the submitted banking rule replace the existing SIP-approved banking rule in its entirety, EPA's conditional approval of the regulation identified in Table 1 would have the effect of entirely superseding our prior approval of the same rule in the current SIP-approved program.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the amended banking rule submitted by CARB on April 22, 2013, as identified in Table 1. We provide our reasoning in general terms later in this preamble and provide a more detailed analysis in our Technical Support Document (TSD), which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
In general, banking rules allow a permitting authority to evaluate whether certain emission reductions meet the offset integrity criteria found in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(
Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a more detailed evaluation and discussion of the approval criteria.
With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the April 22, 2013 submittal, we find that the BAAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, and an opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA.
With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated Rule 2-4 to ensure it does not conflict with the requirements applicable to offsets in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to nonattainment NSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act. For the most part, the submitted banking rule satisfies the applicable requirements and will strengthen the SIP by updating the rule and adding requirements to address fine particulate matter (PM
First, Rule 2-4 is deficient because, while it defines the term ERCs as emission reductions “that are in excess of the reductions required by applicable regulatory requirements, and that are real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable,” it does not contain any enforceable provisions requiring the Air Pollution Control Officer to determine that the emission reductions under review meet the offset integrity criteria prior to issuing an ERC Certificate.
Second, Rule 2-4 is deficient because it incorporates the emission reduction calculation procedures found in Rule 2-2 subsection 605.2. On August 1, 2016, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of BAAQMD's Rule 2-2—
Third, Rule 2-4 is deficient because Section 2-4-302.3 allows ERC Certificates to be issued that do not
With respect to the substantive requirements of CAA section 110(l), we have determined that our approval of Rule 2-4, as described in more detail in our TSD, represents a strengthening of the rule as compared to the District's current SIP-approved banking rule that we approved on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3850), and that our conditional approval of the current SIP submittal would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and Reasonable Further Progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Because the rule deficiencies described previously are inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, EPA cannot grant full approval of this rule under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. However, in a letter dated August 28, 2017, the District committed to adopt and submit specific enforceable measures to address these deficiencies. The District committed to submit these revisions to CARB by October 1, 2018. In addition, in a letter dated August 29, 2017, CARB committed to submit the adopted rule revisions to EPA no later than November 1, 2018. Accordingly, pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA is proposing a conditional approval of the submitted rule. We are proposing to conditionally approve the submitted rule based on our determination that separate from the deficiencies listed previously, the rule: Ensures that issued ERCs will meet the criteria laid out in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(
In support of this proposed action, we have concluded that our conditional approval of the submitted rule would comply with section 110(l) of the Act because the amended rule, as a whole, would not interfere with continued attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the Bay Area. The intended effect of our proposed conditional approval action is to update the applicable SIP with current BAAQMD rules and provide BAAQMD the opportunity to correct the identified deficiencies, as discussed in their commitment letter dated August 28, 2017. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action would be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220 (Identification of plan) and 40 CFR 52.232 (Part D conditional approval).
If the State meets its commitment to submit the required measures by November 1, 2018, the revisions to Rule 2-4 will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new SIP revisions. However, if the District fails to submit these revisions within the required timeframe, the conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval, and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval.
There are no sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) implications should the conditional approval become a disapproval. Sanctions would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the submittal of Rule 2-4 is discretionary (
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed conditional approval of Rule 2-4 for the next 30 days.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Permits, Emissions Banking), which is discussed in section I.A. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available electronically through
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0469 at
Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6602,
a.
b.
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA strengthened the level of the 24-hour PM
Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the EPA should have implemented the 2006 PM
On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements (“PM
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act (from subpart 1) requires that attainment plans, in general, shall provide for the implementation of all RACM (including RACT) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) (from subpart 4) requires Moderate area attainment plans to contain provisions to assure that RACM is implemented no later than four years after designation.
The EPA stated its interpretation of the RACT and RACM requirements of subparts 1 and 4 in the 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). For RACT, the EPA followed its “historic definition of RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 57 FR 13541, April 16, 1992. Like RACT, the EPA has historically considered RACM to consist of control measures that are reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility.
Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah developed a PM
The State of Utah submitted SIP revisions for R307-309 on May 9, 2013, and August 25, 2017. However, the EPA identified issues with R307-309 relating to director's discretion, ambiguous language, and other general language issues. In response, Utah submitted a letter dated September 30, 2016, that committed to revise R307-309 in specific ways to address these issues. Before the EPA could conditionally approve Utah's September 30, 2016 committed revisions, Utah submitted the specific revisions on August 25, 2017. Thus, the EPA is proposing to approve the submittals and to approve the corresponding RACM determination for R307-309 in the December 16, 2014 submittal for Utah's Moderate PM
The following is a summary of the EPA's evaluation of the rule revisions. In general, we reviewed the rule for: Enforceability; RACM requirements (for those rules submitted as RACM); and other applicable requirements of the Act, including those found in 40 CFR part 51.
The area source rule and corresponding RACM analysis from Utah's PM
The rule requires any person owning or operating a new or existing source of fugitive dust one-quarter acre or greater in size to submit a fugitive dust control plan to UDAQ. Sources of fugitive dust include: Storage, hauling or handling operations, earthmoving, excavation, and moving trucks or construction equipment, among many others. Activities regulated by R307-309 may
The rule also sets a generally applicable opacity limit of 10% at property boundaries and 20% onsite, except during high wind events. During these events, the owner or operator must continue to follow the fugitive dust control plan and take one or more specified actions. Under Utah's August 25, 2017 SIP, the actions are: (1) Pre-event watering; (2) hourly watering; (3) adding additional chemical stabilization; and/or (4) ceasing or reducing fugitive dust producing operations to the extent practicable. The rule contains additional requirements regarding roads, mining activities, and tailings ponds and piles.
R307-309 was previously approved for PM
UDAQ noted that the number of dust complaints has significantly decreased since 2008 and only a very small number of complaints were related to an exceedance of the PM
For construction, buildings, single family residential, double unit residential, multiple units, and non-residential industries, UDAQ expects control efficiency (CE), rule effectiveness (RE) and rule penetration (RP) to be 37%, 80%, and 95%, respectively. The calculated PM
On July 11, 2012, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment revisions to R307-309. The public comment period was held from August 1 to August 31, 2012, with a public hearing being held on August 15, 2012. Comments were submitted by industry, environmental associations, and the EPA. The EPA submitted written comments dated November 1, 2012, on Utah's draft PM
UDAQ committed to correct the identified issues in a commitment letter dated September 30, 2016, which can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. On May 3, 2017, the Air Quality Board proposed for public comment revisions found in the September 30, 2016 commitment letter to R307-309. The comment period was held from June 1 to July 3, 2017, with no public hearing being requested. Comments were submitted by an environmental association and the EPA. The EPA submitted a comment on June 1, 2017, specifying the proposed revisions represented revisions committed to in the September 30, 2016 commitment letter. The rule became effective on August 4, 2017. On August 25, 2017, UDAQ submitted these revisions to R307-309 to the EPA. As stated previously, Utah submitted the specific revisions found in the September 30, 2016 commitment letter before the EPA could conditionally approve R307-309; thus, the EPA will be proposing to approve R307-309 and proposing approval of Utah's determination that R307-309 constitutes RACM.
The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to R307-309 submitted on May 9, 2013, and August 25, 2017, and proposing to approve Utah's determination in their December 16, 2014 submittal that R307-309 constitutes RACM for Utah's Moderate PM
Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing.
The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The Utah Division of Administrative Rules (DAR) section R307-300 Series revisions submitted by the UDAQ on May 9, 2013, and August 25, 2017, are intended to strengthen the SIP and to serve as RACM for certain area sources for the Utah PM
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-300 Series as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• 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 the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organization compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted to the EPA by the State of Montana. On September 19, 2016, the Governor of Montana's designee submitted a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year limited maintenance plan for the Missoula area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year period beyond the original redesignation. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0339 at
Adam Clark, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7104,
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New York for purposes of implementing Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This proposed approval is conditioned on New York's timely submittal of a supplement to the SIP that includes a revised regulatory RACT requirement related to control of volatile organic compounds from Industrial Cleaning Solvents. The EPA is proposing to approve New York's RACT SIP as it applies to non-control technique guideline major sources and major sources of oxides of nitrogen. The EPA is also proposing to approve the State of New York's non-attainment new source review certification as sufficient for purposes of satisfying the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This action is being taken in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0459 at
Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3892, or by email at
The
The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of New York on December 22, 2014 for purposes of implementing Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
However, in New York's December 2014 SIP submittal, the State indicates that the RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have been fulfilled with the exception of sources subject to the industrial cleaning solvents control techniques guidelines (CTG). In the State's submittal, New York committed to address sources subject to this CTG through a timely revision to Part 226 entitled, “Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes” of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 226). Therefore, consistent with Section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is conditioning its approval of New York's December 2014 SIP submittal on New York's commitment to submit, by a date certain but not later than one year after the date of the EPA's conditional approval of New York's December 2014 SIP submittal, a revised Part 226 addressing VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents. The State's commitment must be submitted to EPA, as a supplement to the SIP, and include a date certain by which the State will submit Part 226, and the date certain must be no later than one year from the effective date of the EPA's final rule making action on New York's December 2014 SIP submittal. New York must commit in writing to correct the deficiency discussed above.
The EPA is proposing to approve New York's RACT SIP as it applies to non-CTG major sources of VOCs and to major sources of NO
It should be noted that a court ordered consent decree
In 2008, EPA revised the health based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. The EPA determined that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such as asthma.
On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30087), the EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. This action became effective on July 20, 2012. The two 8-hour ozone marginal nonattainment areas located in New York State are the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area and the Jamestown
The counties in the NYMA (and part of Orange County) were previously classified under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS as severe, requiring RACT, while the remaining counties in the State were subject to RACT as part of the moderate classification or as part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). In the NYMA and other portions of Orange County, the previous severe classification resulted in a requirement for major sources to be defined as those having emissions of 25 tons per year or more for either VOC or NO
In areas classified as moderate or areas located in the OTR (which includes all of New York State) under the 8-hour ozone standard, the definition for major sources in New York would have been 50 tons per year for VOC and 100 tons per year for NO
Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the CAA require states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher) nonattainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires RACT in states located in the OTR. Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major VOC and NO
On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), the EPA published a final rule that outlined the obligations that areas found to be in nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS need to address. This rule, herein referred to as the “2008 ozone implementation rule,” contained, among other things, a description of the EPA's expectations for states with RACT obligations. The 2008 ozone implementation rule indicated that states could meet RACT through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements that meet RACT control levels, through a certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by the EPA under a prior ozone NAAQS represents adequate RACT control levels for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a state must submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no CTG sources. The 2008 ozone implementation rule requires that states with nonattainment areas were required to submit RACT SIPs to EPA within two years from the effective date of nonattainment designation or by July 20, 2014.
On December 22, 2014, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC or New York) submitted to the EPA a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of information documenting how New York complied with the RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In its December 2014 RACT submittal, New York certifies that the State's submittal addresses the RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, with the exception of the CTG for industrial cleaning solvents. In New York's December 2014 RACT submittal, the State commits to revise 6 NYCRR Part 226, “Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes,” to fulfill that requirement in a timely manner.
In New York's December 2014 RACT submittal, the State evaluated its existing RACT regulations which were adopted to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard to ascertain whether the same regulations constitute RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. In making its new 8-hour ozone RACT determination, New York relied on EPA's RACT Question and Answer document (May 18, 2006) and the most recent emission control technology and cost evaluations to determine what constitutes technically and economically feasible controls for specific sources. Accordingly, the basic framework for New York's December 2014 RACT SIP determination is described as follows:
• Identify all source categories covered by CTG and ACT documents.
• Identify applicable regulations that implement RACT.
• Certify that the existing level of controls for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard equals RACT under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in certain cases.
• Declare which sources covered by a CTG and ACT do not exist within the state and/or that RACT is not applicable in certain cases.
• Identify and evaluate applicability of RACT to individual sources whose source category does not have a presumptive emission limit covered by a state-wide regulation.
• Identify potential RACT revisions.
• Identify statewide applicability of nonattainment new source review (NNSR).
New York certified that, with the exception of Part 226, “Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes,” which addresses VOC emissions from solvent metal cleaning processes, all RACT regulations with SIP approved State effective dates through the date when the RACT analysis was performed in 2014 are RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the RACT determinations issued by the State are consistent with the most recent control technology and economic
New York reviewed its existing RACT regulations adopted under the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standard to identify source categories covered by the EPA's CTG and ACT documents. New York's RACT SIP submittal lists the CTG and ACT documents and corresponding State RACT regulations that cover the CTG and ACT sources included in New York's emissions inventory. For non-CTG major sources, 6 NYCRR Part 212, “General Process Emission Sources,” regulates RACT compliance for VOC and NO
With the exception of VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents, New York has implemented RACT controls state-wide for all CTGs that the EPA has issued as of December 2014. The following table lists the RACT controls that have been promulgated in 6 NYCRR and the corresponding EPA SIP approval dates.
New York's December 2014 RACT submittal contains a table (see Appendix A: Control Technique Guidelines and Alternative Control Techniques Documents) listing all the CTG categories and the corresponding State regulations or negative declarations that address the requirements. The EPA had previously approved and incorporated into the SIP all of the State's regulations identified in Appendix A that address CTGs.
For many source categories, the existing New York rules have more stringent emission limits and/or lower thresholds of applicability than the recommendations contained in the CTG and ACT documents. In its submittal, New York identified some categories where controls may be more stringent than the recommended levels contained in the CTG and ACT documents and these are identified below in the section entitled “Additional Control Measures Needed for Attainment.” New York considers and certifies that its SIP approved regulations meet the RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
New York previously certified to the satisfaction of the EPA (40 CFR 52.1683(a)) that no sources are located in the nonattainment area of the State which are covered by the following CTGs: (1) Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants; (2) Air Oxidation Processes at Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industries; and (3) Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. In addition, New York previously certified to the satisfaction of the EPA (40 CFR 52.1683(b)) that no sources are located in the State which are covered by the CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. New York has reviewed its emission inventory and emission statements as required under 6 NYCRR 202-2, “Emission Statement,” for stationary sources and affirms that there are no sources within New York State for the following CTGs: (1) Manufacture of Vegetable Oils,
In New York's September 2006 RACT submittal for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the State indicated that there were no sources in the State that are applicable to the CTG related to industrial cleaning solvents; the State, however, has since determined that there are sources in the State that are applicable to this CTG. In New York's December 2014 RACT submittal, the State commits to revise and adopt in a timely manner 6 NYCRR Part 226, “Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes,” to fulfill the requirements of the CTG for industrial cleaning solvents. New York must commit to adopt and submit 6 NYCRR Part 226 to EPA by a date certain but no later than one year from the effective date of the EPA's final rule making action on New York's December 2014 SIP submittal.
The 8-hour ozone RACT analysis must address source-specific RACT as it applies to a single regulated entity. A source-specific RACT determination applies to sources that have obtained a facility-specific emission limit or an alternative emission limit,
In addition, in accordance with New York's NO
In some instances, New York has adopted regulations with emission limits that are more stringent than those recommended by the CTGs and ACTs. For example, Part 228, “Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers,” Part 234, “Graphic Arts,” Part 241, “Asphalt Pavement and Asphalt Based Surface Coatings,” and Part 227-2, “Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Major Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NO
In New York's December 22, 2014 RACT SIP submittal, the State's response to comments included an assessment that “once the NYMA is reclassified as `moderate' nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and an attainment SIP is required, DEC [New York] will undertake a review of its many NO
During the public comment period on New York's 2008 ozone RACT proposal a comment was submitted to the State proposing that Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs) in the NYMA should be controlled to at least the RACT level. In New York's response, the State indicated that once the NYMA is classified as moderate the State would undertake a review of its many control options to determine which would most effectively and efficiently reduce emissions in the NYMA. As stated previously, the NYMA was reclassified as a moderate nonattainment area effective June 2016. In its response to comment, New York estimated that potential NO
New York's NO
New York has adopted 6 NYCRR Part 222 for DG to address peaking electric generation units which will help address emissions resulting from high electric demand days (HEDD). Assuming Part 222 remains in effect after current litigation concerning it is resolved, New York should submit Part 222 as a SIP revision for EPA approval. Alternatively, New York should consider other regulations for addressing HEDD. In addition, as stated previously, the EPA also recommends that New York review the simple cycle combustion turbine limit of 100 ppmvd and consider adopting a more stringent limit similar to that adopted by Connecticut.
On October 27, 2016, the EPA announced in the
New York provides NNSR certification in the State's April 4, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. New York provides additional affirmation in its December 2014 RACT submittal that, since the State is located in the OTR, NNSR
New York submitted a state-wide RACT assessment on December 22, 2014. The RACT submission from New York consists of: (1) A certification that previously adopted RACT controls in New York's SIP for various source categories that were approved by the EPA under the 1-hour and the 1997 8-hour ozone standards are based on the currently available technically and economically feasible controls and that they continue to represent RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for implementation purposes; (2) a number of source-specific RACT determinations submitted to the EPA for approval; (3) a negative declaration that for certain CTGs and/or ACTs there are no sources within New York State or that there are no sources within New York above the applicability threshold; and (4) a commitment to revise and adopt, and submit as a SIP revision a new or more stringent regulation Part 226, that represent a RACT control level for sources subject to the industrial cleaning solvents CTG.
The EPA has reviewed New York's RACT analysis and has determined that the state-wide RACT analysis submitted on December 22, 2014 does not fully address the RACT requirement consistent with section 182(b)(2) of the CAA because New York has not adopted the RACT measure, 6 NYCRR Part 226, related to sources subject to the industrial cleaning solvents CTG.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve New York's state-wide RACT SIP based on the State's commitment to submit Part 226 by a date certain but no later than one year from the effective date of the EPA's final rule making action on New York's December 2014 SIP submittal. The EPA encourages New York to accelerate its rulemaking process and adopt the control measures for sources subject to the industrial cleaning solvents CTG. The EPA is proposing to approve the remainder of New York's December 22, 2014 SIP submittal as it applies to non-CTG major sources of VOCs and to major sources of NO
Furthermore, the EPA encourages New York to strengthen its ozone SIP by adopting, and submitting as SIP revisions, additional control measures needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by: (1) Considering the adoption of more stringent emission limits for MWCs located in the NYMA; (2) considering the adoption of more stringent emission limits for simple cycle combustion turbines firing distillate oil or more than one fuel; (3) adopting and submitting a regulation that addresses the October 2016 oil and natural gas CTG; and (4) submitting a SIP revision that addresses HEDD sources.
The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve New York's state-wide RACT submittal dated December 22, 2014 for purposes of satisfying the 2008 8-hour ozone standard RACT requirement. New York must correct the deficiency discussed in section IV by revising, adopting and submitting to the EPA, a new or more stringent regulation, Part 226, that represent a RACT control level for sources subject to the industrial cleaning solvents CTG. New York must commit to adopt and submit Part 226 to EPA as a SIP revision by a date certain but not later than one year from the EPA's final action on this SIP action.
The EPA's conditional approval relates to New York's state-wide RACT SIP revision as it applies to the relevant CAA CTG requirements for VOC major sources. The EPA is proposing to approve the remainder of New York's December 22, 2014 SIP submittal as it applies to non-CTG major sources of VOCs and to major sources of NO
The EPA is also proposing to approve New York's NNSR certification as sufficient for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Under section 110(k) of the CAA, the EPA may conditionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year after the date of approval of the plan revision. If the EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment to submit Part 226 that addresses the industrial cleaning solvents CTG. If New York fails to meet its commitment within the specified time period for any portion of the deficient SIP requirement discussed in section IV above, the conditional approval will, by operation of law, become a disapproval. The EPA will notify the State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, this commitment will no longer be a part of the approved SIP for New York and an 18 -month clock for sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) and a two-year clock for a federal implementation plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c)(1) would commence. The EPA subsequently will publish a document in the
If the EPA disapproves a State's new submittal, the conditionally approved RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone standard will also be disapproved at that time. If the EPA approves the submittal, the State's RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone standard will be fully approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone RACT standard in the SIP.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal. These comments will be considered before the EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments as discussed in the
Under the CAA, 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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to New York's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT submission does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
During a review of Arkansas' regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified a variety of State-initiated changes to Arkansas' hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA proposes to authorize the State for the program changes. In addition, the EPA proposes to codify in the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs”, Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will enforce under RCRA. The purpose of this
Send written comments by October 16, 2017.
Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2016-0680 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permit Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number: (214) 665-8533, mail address:
The EPA has already provided notices and opportunity for comments on the Agency's decisions to codify the Arkansas program, and the EPA is not now reopening the decisions, nor requesting comments, on the Arkansas authorization program. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
For additional information, please see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
On March 23, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Ambar Esthela Morales (“Morales”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Morales was convicted of knowingly and willfully attempting to export from the United States to Mexico defense articles designated on the United States Munition List, namely, 7,942 rounds of 7.62 x 39mm caliber ammunition, without the required U.S. Department of State license. Morales was sentenced to three years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Morales's conviction for violating Section 38 of the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Morales to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Morales.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Morales's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Morales's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Morales had an interest at the time of her conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On April 28, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Dmitrii Karpenko, a/k/a Simon Fox (“Karpenko”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
Section 766.25 of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b))[;] or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a);
BIS has received notice of Karpenko's conviction for violating IEEPA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Karpenko to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Karpenko.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Karpenko's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five (5) years from the date of Karpenko's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Karpenko had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph,
On April 28, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Alexey Krutilin a/k/a David Powell (“Krutilin”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
Section 766.25 of the Regulations provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the EAA [Export Administration Act], the EAR, or any order, license, or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)); or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a);
BIS has received notice of Krutilin's conviction for violating IEEPA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Krutilin to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Krutilin.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Krutilin's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of ten (10) years from the date of Krutilin's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Krutilin had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective September 14, 2017.
Aleksandras Nakutis, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147.
On June 5, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results of the 2014-2015 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
This correction to the final results of this administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Department) determines that certain steel nails (nails) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2016.
Effective September 14, 2017.
Susan Pulongbarit or Annathea Cook, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4031 or (202) 482-0250, respectively.
On May 31, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the
The merchandise subject to the order is certain steel nails. The product is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.
As noted above, we have received no comments regarding the
As noted in the
As no parties submitted comments on the
The final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise and deposits of estimated duties, where applicable, in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this administrative review.
For ODS, we will base the assessment rate for the corresponding entries on the margin listed above. Additionally, because the Department determined that Oman Fasteners and OISI had no shipments of merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries that entered under their name will be liquidated at the all-others rate effective during the POR.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, as well as those companies listed in the “Determination of No Shipments” section, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.30 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.
Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to ODS for these final results is based on adverse facts available, there are no calculations to disclose.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
These final results are in accordance with sections 751(a)(a) and 777(i)(1) of the act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting via video conference.
The National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact Reduction (NACWIR or Committee), will hold an open meeting continuing the work of the Committee via video conference on Monday, September 25, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to finalize the Committee's report on assessments and recommendations on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. Interested members of the public will also be able to participate from remote locations. Instructions will be provided when members of the public register.
The NACWIR will hold a meeting via video conference on
Questions regarding the meeting should be sent to the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.
Anyone wishing to participate must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday, September 18, 2017. For instructions on how to participate in the meeting, please see the
Steve Potts, Management and Program Analyst, NWIRP, Engineering Laboratory, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8611, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. He can also be contacted by email at
The NACWIR was established in accordance with the requirements of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015, Public Law 114-52. The NACWIR is charged with offering assessments and recommendations on—
• Trends and developments in the natural, engineering, and social sciences and practices of windstorm impact mitigation;
• the priorities of the Strategic Plan for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (Program);
• the coordination of the Program;
• the effectiveness of the Program in meeting its purposes; and
• any revisions to the Program which may be necessary.
Background information on NWIRP and the Committee is available at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NACWIR will hold an open meeting continuing the work of the Committee via video conference on Monday, September 25, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to finalize the Committee's report on assessments and recommendations on the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. The agenda and meeting materials will be posted on the NACWIR Web site at
All participants of the meeting are required to pre-register. Please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Steve Potts at
Speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated, and those who were unable to participate are invited to submit written statements to NACWIR, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8611, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, or electronically by email to
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), this
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Special Agent Jaclyn Smith, NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, 222 W. 7th Ave., #10, Anchorage, AK 99513, (907) 271-1869 or
This request is for a new information collection.
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) certified observers are a vital part of fisheries management. Observers are deployed to collect fisheries data in the field; observers often deploy to vessels and work alongside fishers for weeks and months at a time. The work environment observers find themselves in can be challenging, especially if observers find themselves a target for victim type violations such as sexual harassment, intimidation, or even assault. NOAA Fisheries' Office of Law Enforcement prioritizes investigations into allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, assault and other complaints, which may affect observers individually. However, it is difficult for a person to disclose if they have been a victim of a crime, and law enforcement cannot respond if no complaint is submitted. The true number of observers who have experienced victim type crimes is unknown, and the reasons why they do not report is also unclear. More information is needed to understand how many observers per year experience victim type crimes, and why they chose not to report to law enforcement.
The Office of Law Enforcement, Alaska Division, is conducting a survey of North Pacific Observers to determine the number of observers who experienced victimizing behavior during deployments in 2016 and 2017. The survey will also investigate the reasons that prevented observers from
Data will be collected on a voluntary basis, via an electronic survey to ensure anonymity. The survey will be offered to all observers who deployed in 2016 and 2017 in the North Pacific Observer Program. Individual data will not be released for public use.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to David W. Carter, Economist, SEFSC, NMFS, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami FL 33149, (305) 361-4467 or
This request is for a new information collection.
The objective of the short survey will be to understand how anglers respond to changes in trip costs and fishing regulations in the Gulf of Mexico. We are conducting this survey to improve our ability to predict changes the number of fishing trips anticipated with changes in economic conditions or fishing regulations. This will improve the analysis of the economic effects of proposed changes in fishing regulations and changes in economic factors that affect the cost of fishing such as fuel prices.
The population consists of those anglers who fish in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida, including those who possess a license to fish, and those who are not required to have a license (
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for letters of authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources (OPR) has received a request from the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting fisheries research, over the course of five years from the date of issuance. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), OPR is announcing receipt of the AFSC's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals. OPR invites the public to provide information, suggestions, and comments on the AFSC's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than October 16, 2017.
Comments on the applications should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as . . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as . . . an impact resulting from the specified activity:
(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On June 28, 2016, OPR received an adequate and complete application from the AFSC requesting authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted by the AFSC. We previously made this version of the application available for public review on October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71709), for a period of 30 days.
On September 6, 2017, AFSC presented substantive revisions to the application. First, AFSC has modified their analysis of potential take of marine mammals resulting from fisheries research activities that they conduct following a determination that take of sperm whales and killer whales is a reasonably anticipated outcome of those activities. These species are known to attempt depredation of the catch of longline operations, and although there are no known interactions between these species and research longline gear, there are records of such interactions between these species and commercial longline operations. Therefore, AFSC has modified their request for authorization of take to include small numbers of take of these species specifically incidental to fisheries research using bottom longline gear.
Second, AFSC has determined it appropriate to incorporate the fisheries research activities of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) into their specified activity. The IPHC, established by a Convention between the governments of Canada and the U.S., is an international fisheries organization mandated to conduct research on and management of the stocks of Pacific halibut (
Aside from section 6.1 (describing the requested take authorization incidental to AFSC-conducted activities) and Appendix C (describing IPHC activities and associated take authorization request), the AFSC application is unchanged from the version made available for review in 2016.
The requested regulations would be valid for five years from the date of issuance. The AFSC plans to conduct fisheries research surveys in multiple geographic regions, including the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean. The IPHC operates in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and waters off the U.S. west coast. It is possible that marine mammals may interact with fishing gear (
The Federal Government has a responsibility to conserve and protect living marine resources in U.S. federal waters and has also entered into a number of international agreements and treaties related to the management of living marine resources in international waters outside the United States. NOAA has the primary responsibility for managing marine fin and shellfish species and their habitats, with that responsibility delegated within NOAA to NMFS.
In order to direct and coordinate the collection of scientific information needed to make informed management decisions, Congress created six Regional Fisheries Science Centers, each a distinct organizational entity and the scientific focal point within NMFS for region-based, Federal fisheries-related research. This research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, abundance, survival and biological rates, geographic distribution of species and stocks, ecosystem process changes, and marine ecological research. The AFSC is the research arm of NMFS in U.S. waters off of Alaska.
As noted above, the IPHC is an international organization dedicated to conducting research in support of increasing and maintaining knowledge of halibut biology and stock assessment.
Research is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, survival and biological rates, abundance and geographic distribution of species and stocks, and providing other scientific information needed to improve our understanding of complex marine ecological processes. The AFSC and IPHC propose to administer and conduct these survey programs over the five-year period.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the AFSC's request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
NMFS has received an application from Barney M. Davis L.P. for an incidental take permit, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, for Barney M. Davis Power Station in Corpus Christi, TX. The facility monitors the intake canal in an effort to intercept sea turtles prior to their contact with the facility's cooling water intake structure. The facility is requesting the permit be issued for a duration of 10 years.
Although the facility has been in operation since 1974, the presence of sea turtles in the intake canal has only occurred during the past 10 years, and is associated with cold-stunning events. Under the proposed action, when a sea turtle is located in the intake canal of the facility, the sea turtle will be collected by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and held at their nearby facility until the United States Fish and Wildlife Service collects the sea turtles for tagging and rehabilitation at the Animal Rehabilitation Keep prior to release back into the Gulf of Mexico. Although every effort will be made to intercept sea turtles prior to the cooling water intake structure, it is possible that a stunned sea turtle may become impinged on the automatic rake prior to entering the structure. Although unlikely, due to the physical characteristics and operations of the structure, any impingement of turtles would be lethal.
NMFS is furnishing this notice in order to allow other agencies and the public an opportunity to review and comment on this document. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review.
Written comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
The application is available for download and review at
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0104, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ron Dean, (301) 427-8445.
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the `taking' of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides for authorizing incidental take of listed species. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.
Pursuant to the ESA, NMFS reviewed in Barney Davis' December 23, 2015 application, including the conservation plan and analytical methods for estimating potential takes. After discussions with NMFS, Barney Davis submitted an updated application on November 4, 2016. NMFS and the applicant continued discussions, and Barney Davis submitted all additional information on August 25, 2017 and the application was considered complete at that time. The duration of the proposed permit is 10 years.
Barney M. Davis, LP owns Barney M. Davis Power Station (the facility), a natural gas-fired electric power generating facility. The facility is located at 4301 Waldron Road, Corpus Christi, Nueces County, TX. The facility has approximately 1,992 acres of land between the Laguna Madre and Oso Creek and is comprised of two natural gas fired combustion turbines.
The facility has a 0.75-mile intake canal into the Laguna Madre leading to the facility's Cooling Water Intake Structure. The phenomenon of “cold-stunning” occurs to sea turtles in the waters around the facility's intake structure. During cooler months, sea turtles in the Laguna Madre cross the entrance of the facility's intake canal to where water is cooler, and become “cold-stunned” and therefore unable to swim. Once the sea turtles are cold-stunned, they float into the facility's intake canal, toward the facility. The facility has experienced an increased occurrence in the number of sea turtles in the intake canal during the winter months (December-March). The facility currently coordinates with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in the Coastal Conservation Association Marine Development Center to collect and relocate sea turtles that have migrated into the intake canal. The facility is applying for an Incidental Take Permit in accordance with rules established under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The permit application is for the incidental take of the North Atlantic Distinct Population Segment DPS of the ESA-listed threatened green turtle (
Section 10 of the ESA specifies that no permit may be issued unless an applicant submits an adequate habitat conservation plan. The conservation plan prepared by Barney Davis describes measures designed to minimize and mitigate the impacts of any incidental takes of ESA-listed green and Kemp's ridley sea turtles.
The facility has experienced an increased occurrence in the number of cold-stunned sea turtles in the intake canal during the winter months and currently coordinates with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in the Coastal Conservation Association Marine Development Center to collect and relocate sea turtles that have migrated into the intake canal.
The facility utilizes a 0.75-mile cooling water intake canal leading to the Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) from the Laguna Madre. To avoid and minimize take of sea turtles, Barney Davis proposes to have staff visually monitor the area a minimum of four times per every 12-hour shift. These visual assessments provide staff the opportunity to identify turtles in the canal prior to them reaching the intake structure. Facility staff responsible for monitoring the intake canal will be trained upon hiring, and again annually, on the proper procedures required for the collection of turtles. Photos of potentially affected species are available to staff to assist them with species identification. Staff will be required to measure the length of the turtles collected to assist in estimating their age.
Barney M. Davis Power Station is an existing facility and there are no construction activities planned, nor additional funding. Continued monitoring related to the take of sea turtles will be ongoing and funding provided through the facility's annual operating budget.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and submitted comments to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) permitting process. If it is determined that the requirements are met, a permit will be issued for incidental takes of ESA-listed threatened Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of green turtles and Kemp's ridley sea turtles under the jurisdiction of NMFS.
Barney Davis evaluated three alternatives to the proposed action: (1) Seasonal outages of the facility during winter months when the incidence of take is higher; (2) additional monitoring equipment located prior to the intake structure; and (3) a “no action” alternative. The alternatives considered were determined to either be unfeasible, or to have no significant impact, or would result in an increase in adverse effects to sea turtles compared to the activity as proposed.
The final permit determinations will not be completed until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all public comments received during the comment period. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public roundtable.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a roundtable discussion at its headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on October 18, 2017, on addressing intellectual property infringements at trade shows.
The public roundtable will be held on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The public roundtable will be held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Global Intellectual Property Academy, Madison Building (East), Second Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. All major entrances to the building are accessible to people with disabilities.
For further information regarding the public meeting, please contact Peter N. Fowler or Kortney Hammonds at the Office of Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at (571) 272-9300, by email at
Trade shows can provide opportunities for both the willful and unintentional infringement of intellectual property rights. The transient nature of these events presents challenges for intellectual property rights holders to address an infringement, discover the infringement, take action against it, or, in some cases, even determine against whom to assert their legal rights.
The USPTO is hosting a public roundtable to discuss approaches, strategies, and effective practices for addressing the kinds of infringement that most often occur at trade fairs and shows, including the infringement of copyright, design, patent, and trademark. Topics to be explored will include: How U.S. Government agencies and the courts can be used effectively when intellectual property rights are infringed at trade shows; legal measures and strategies available to rights holders before, during, and after a trade show; and recent and anticipated trends and challenges faced by rights holders and trade show operators. Speakers drawn from academia, civil and criminal litigation practice, rights holders and industry associations, and the U.S. Government will offer insights, observations, and experiences, on intellectual property infringements at trade shows. They will discuss how to deal with the challenges presented at trade shows, including legal strategies employed in removing allegedly infringing goods from a trade show venue.
The public roundtable will be held at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Global Intellectual Property Academy, Madison Building (East), Second Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, and will begin at 9 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. The event will also be webcast and offered via interactive viewing at USPTO satellite offices in Dallas, Denver, Detroit, and San Jose. The agenda will be available a week before the meeting on the USPTO Web site,
The public roundtable will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodation, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, should communicate their needs to Kortney Hammonds in the Office of Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at (571) 272-1500, by email at
Council on Environmental Quality.
Notice.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is publishing its initial list of actions pursuant to Executive Order 13807 of August 15, 2017, titled “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” and published on August 24, 2017.
This Initial List of Actions will be available at
Council on Environmental Quality (Attn: Ted Boling, Associate Director for the National Environmental Policy Act), 730 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: (202) 395-5750. Email:
On August 15, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13807 titled “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” which was published on August 24, 2017. 82 FR 40463. The Executive Order directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to undertake a number of actions. In particular, Section 5(e)(i) of Executive Order 13807 provides that “[w]ithin 30 days of the date of this order, the CEQ shall develop an initial list of actions it will take to enhance and modernize the Federal environmental review and authorization process. Such actions should include issuing such regulations, guidance, and directives as CEQ may deem necessary to:
(A) Ensure optimal interagency coordination of environmental review and authorization decisions, including by providing for an expanded role and authorities for lead agencies, more clearly defined responsibilities for cooperating and
(B) ensure that environmental reviews and authorization decisions involving multiple agencies are conducted in a manner that is concurrent, synchronized, timely, and efficient;
(C) provide for agency use, to the maximum extent permitted by law, of environmental studies, analysis, and decisions conducted in support of earlier Federal, State, tribal, or local environmental reviews or authorization decisions; and
(D) ensure that agencies apply NEPA in a manner that reduces unnecessary burdens and delays as much as possible, including by using CEQ's authority to interpret NEPA to simplify and accelerate the NEPA review process.”
1. To comply with Section 5(b)(iv) of Executive Order 13807, CEQ intends to develop with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and in consultation with the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council), a framework providing for the implementation of One Federal Decision. This framework may be supplemented with additional guidance and directives as needed.
2. To comply with Section 5(d) of Executive Order 13807, CEQ will refer various requests for designation of State projects pursuant to Executive Order 13766 to the Permitting Council, Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as appropriate. CEQ will, as appropriate in response to any additional requests from States, refer projects that qualify for designation as high priority projects in accordance with Section 5(d) of Executive Order 13807.
3. To comply with Section 5(e)(i) of the Executive Order, CEQ intends to
(a) revise, modify or supplement its existing guidance regarding:
i. Establishing, Applying, and Revising Categorical Exclusions under NEPA, with supporting information regarding established Categorical Exclusions;
ii. Preparing Environmental Assessments;
iii. Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under NEPA;
iv. Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact; and
v. Environmental Collaboration and Conflict Resolution;
(b) review existing CEQ Regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA in order to identify changes needed to update and clarify those regulations; and
(c) issue such additional guidance to agency heads as CEQ may deem necessary to simplify and accelerate the NEPA process for infrastructure projects, including infrastructure-specific guidance to be compiled in a NEPA practitioners' handbook for infrastructure project proposals, to address issues including but not limited to the following:
i. public involvement, including meetings and sufficiency of notice;
ii. deference to the lead Federal agency with regard to key NEPA elements such as the development of the statement of purpose and need and range of alternatives;
iii. appropriate cumulative impacts analysis methodologies or tools for infrastructure projects;
iv. sources of information that may be relied upon in analyzing impacts;
v. reliance on prior studies, analyses or decisions for projects within the same general locations; and
vi. reliance on State, local and tribal environmental impacts analyses for purposes of NEPA.
4. To comply with Section 5(e)(iii), CEQ will convene an interagency Executive Order 13807 Working Group, consisting of agency Chief Environmental Review and Permit Officers, the OMB Director, and representatives of other such Federal agencies as CEQ shall deem appropriate. The working group shall review the NEPA implementing regulations and other environmental review and authorization procedures and policies of Federal agencies that are members of the Permitting Council to identify impediments to the efficient and effective processing of environmental reviews and authorizations for infrastructure projects and to identify agencies that require an action plan to address the identified impediments. Based on this review, involved Federal agencies shall develop their action plans setting forth the actions they will take as well as timelines for completing those actions, and submit their action plans to CEQ and OMB for comment. Each agency's action plan shall, at a minimum, establish procedures for a regular review and update of categorical exclusions, where appropriate. CEQ anticipates that the working group will address a number of issues relating to environmental reviews, including but not limited to consultations pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and permitting and certifications pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, DoD.
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 13, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of Military and Family Readiness Policy, Family Advocacy Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03G15, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, ATTN: Mary Campise, or call 571-372-5346.
DoD Instruction 6400.01 Family Advocacy Program (FAP) establishes policy and assigns responsibility for addressing child abuse and neglect and domestic abuse through family advocacy programs and services. Each military service delivers a family advocacy program to their respective military members and their families. Military or family members may use these services, and voluntary personal information must be gathered to determine benefit eligibility and individual needs.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 13, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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.
On June 16, 2017, the Department of Education (the Department) published a notice in the
This clearance package includes §§ 668.405, 668.410, 668.411, 668.413, and 668.414. The burden related to
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 13, 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 Patrick Carr, 202-708-8196.
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.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 November 13, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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.
On June 16, 2017, the Department of Education (the Department) published a notice in the
The Department is requesting an extension without change of burden to the currently approved information collection as any new regulations will not be finalized before the expiration of this current package. There have been no changes to the regulations since the initial collection approval.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 November 13, 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 Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
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.
On June 16, 2017, the Department of Education (the Department) published a
The Department is requesting an extension without change of burden to the currently approved information collection as any new regulations will not be available before the expiration of this current package. There have been no changes to the regulations since the initial approval of the information collection on November 3, 2014.
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft of a proposed SFFAS entitled
The exposure draft is available on the FASAB Web site at
Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure draft. Written comments are requested by November 30, 2017, and should be sent to
Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.
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), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 13, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
47 CFR 74.781 information collection requirements include the following: (a) The licensee of a low power TV, TV
(b) Entries required by § 17.49 of this Chapter concerning any observed or otherwise known extinguishment or improper functioning of a tower light: (1) The nature of such extinguishment or improper functioning. (2) The date and time the extinguishment or improper operation was observed or otherwise noted. (3) The date, time and nature of adjustments, repairs or replacements made.
(c) The station records shall be maintained for inspection at a residence, office, or public building, place of business, or other suitable place, in one of the communities of license of the translator or booster, except that the station records of a booster or translator licensed to the licensee of the primary station may be kept at the same place where the primary station records are kept. The name of the person keeping station records, together with the address of the place where the records are kept, shall be posted in accordance with § 74.765(c) of the rules. The station records shall be made available upon request to any authorized representative of the Commission.
(d) Station logs and records shall be retained for a period of two years.
47 CFR 74.1281 information collection requirements include the following: (a) The licensee of a station authorized under this Subpart shall maintain adequate station records, including the current instrument of authorization, official correspondence with the FCC, maintenance records, contracts, permission for rebroadcasts, and other pertinent documents.
(b) Entries required by § 17.49 of this chapter concerning any observed or otherwise known extinguishment or improper functioning of a tower light:
(1) The nature of such extinguishment or improper functioning.
(2) The date and time the extinguishment of improper operation was observed or otherwise noted.
(3) The date, time and nature of adjustments, repairs or replacements made.
(c) The station records shall be maintained for inspection at a residence, office, or public building, place of business, or other suitable place, in one of the communities of license of the translator or booster, except that the station records of a booster or translator licensed to the licensee of the primary station may be kept at the same place where the primary station records are kept. The name of the person keeping station records, together with the address of the place where the records are kept, shall be posted in accordance with § 74.1265(b) of the rules. The station records shall be made available upon request to any authorized representative of the Commission.
(d) Station logs and records shall be retained for a period of two years.
47 CFR 78.69 requires each licensee of a CARS station shall maintain records showing the following:
(a) For all attended or remotely controlled stations, the date and time of the beginning and end of each period of transmission of each channel;
(b) For all stations, the date and time of any unscheduled interruptions to the transmissions of the station, the duration of such interruptions, and the causes thereof;
(c) For all stations, the results and dates of the frequency measurements made pursuant to § 78.113 and the name of the person or persons making the measurements;
(d) For all stations, when service or maintenance duties are performed, which may affect a station's proper operation, the responsible operator shall sign and date an entry in the station's records, giving:
(1) Pertinent details of all transmitter adjustments performed by the operator or under the operator's supervision.
(e) When a station in this service has an antenna structure which is required to be illuminated, appropriate entries shall be made as follows:
(1) The time the tower lights are turned on and off each day, if manually controlled.
(2) The time the daily check of proper operation of the tower lights was made, if an automatic alarm system is not employed.
(3) In the event of any observed or otherwise known failure of a tower light:
(i) Nature of such failure.
(ii) Date and time the failure was observed or otherwise noted.
(iii) Date, time, and nature of the adjustments, repairs, or replacements made.
(iv) Identification of Flight Service Station (Federal Aviation Administration) notified of the failure of any code or rotating beacon light not corrected within 30 minutes, and the date and time such notice was given.
(v) Date and time notice was given to the Flight Service Station (Federal Aviation Administration) that the required illumination was resumed.
(4) Upon completion of the 3-month periodic inspection required by § 78.63(c):
(i) The date of the inspection and the condition of all tower lights and associated tower lighting control devices, indicators, and alarm systems.
(ii) Any adjustments, replacements, or repairs made to insure compliance with the lighting requirements and the date such adjustments, replacements, or repairs were made.
(f) For all stations, station record entries shall be made in an orderly and legible manner by the person or persons competent to do so, having actual knowledge of the facts required, who shall sign the station record when starting duty and again when going off duty.
(g) For all stations, no station record or portion thereof shall be erased, obliterated, or willfully destroyed within the period of retention required by rule. Any necessary correction may be made only by the person who made the original entry who shall strike out the erroneous portion, initial the correction made, and show the date the correction was made.
(h) For all stations, station records shall be retained for a period of not less than 2 years. The Commission reserves the right to order retention of station records for a longer period of time. In cases where the licensee or permittee has notice of any claim or complaint, the station record shall be retained until such claim or complaint has been fully satisfied or until the same has been barred by statute limiting the time for filing of suits upon such claims.
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), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 13, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
47 CFR 76.970(h) requires cable operators to provide the following information within 15 calendar days of a request regarding leased access (for systems subject to small system relief, cable operators are required to provide the following information within 30 days of a request regarding leased access):
(a) A complete schedule of the operator's full-time and part-time leased access rates;
(b) How much of the cable operator's leased access set-aside capacity is available;
(c) Rates associated with technical and studio costs;
(d) If specifically requested, a sample leased access contract; and
(e) Operators must maintain supporting documentation to justify scheduled rates in their files.
47 CFR 76.971 requires cable operators to provide billing and collection services to leased access programmers unless they can demonstrate the existence of third party billing and collection services which, in terms of cost and accessibility, offer leased access programmers an alternative substantially equivalent to that offered to comparable non-leased access programmers.
47 CFR 76.975(b) requires that persons alleging that a cable operator's leased access rate is unreasonable must receive a determination of the cable operator's maximum permitted rate from an independent accountant prior to filing a petition for relief with the Commission.
47 CFR 76.975(c) requires that petitioners attach a copy of the final accountant's report to their petition where the petition is based on allegations that a cable operator's leased access rates are unreasonable.
47 CFR 73.54(c) requires that AM licensees file a letter notification with the FCC when determining power by the direct method. In addition, Section 73.54(c) requires that background information regarding antenna resistance measurement data for AM stations must be kept on file at the station.
47 CFR 73.54(d) requires AM stations using direct reading power meters to either submit the information required by (c) or submit a statement indicating that such a meter is being used.
47 CFR 73.61(a) states each AM station using a directional antenna with monitoring point locations specified in the instrument of authorization must make field strength measurements at the
47 CFR 73.61(b) states if the AM license was granted on the basis of field strength measurements performed pursuant to Section 73.151(a), partial proof of performance measurements using the procedures described in Section 73.154 must be made whenever the licensee has reason to believe that the radiated field may be exceeding the limits for which the station was most recently authorized to operate.
47 CFR 73.61(c) requires a station may be directed to make a partial proof of performance by the FCC whenever there is an indication that the antenna is not operating as authorized.
47 CFR 73.62(b) requires an AM station with a directional antenna system to measure and log every monitoring point at least once for each mode of directional operation within 24 hours of detection of variance of operating parameters from allowed tolerances.
47 CFR 73.68(c) states a station having an antenna sampling system constructed according to the specifications given in paragraph (a) of this section may obtain approval of that system by submitting an informal letter request to the FCC in Washington, DC, Attention: Audio Division, Media Bureau. The request for approval, signed by the licensee or authorized representative, must contain sufficient information to show that the sampling system is in compliance with all requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
47 CFR 73.68(d) states in the event that the antenna monitor sampling system is temporarily out of service for repair or replacement, the station may be operated, pending completion of repairs or replacement, for a period not exceeding 120 days without further authority from the FCC if all other operating parameters and the field monitoring point values are within the limits specified on the station authorization.
47 CFR 73.68(e)(1) Special Temporary Authority (see Section 73.1635) shall be requested and obtained from the Commission's Audio Division, Media Bureau in Washington to operate with parameters at variance with licensed values pending issuance of a modified license specifying parameters subsequent to modification or replacement of components.
47 CFR 73.68(e)(4) states request for modification of license shall be submitted to the FCC in Washington, DC, within 30 days of the date of sampling system modification or replacement. Such request shall specify the transmitter plate voltage and plate current, common point current, base currents and their ratios, antenna monitor phase and current indications, and all other data obtained pursuant to this paragraph.
47 CFR 73.68(f) states if an existing sampling system is found to be patently of marginal construction, or where the performance of a directional antenna is found to be unsatisfactory, and this deficiency reasonably may be attributed, in whole or in part, to inadequacies in the antenna monitoring system, the FCC may require the reconstruction of the sampling system in accordance with requirements specified above.
47 CFR 73.69(c) requires AM station licensees with directional antennas to file an informal request to operate without required monitors with the Media Bureau in Washington, DC, when conditions beyond the control of the licensee prevent the restoration of an antenna monitor to service within a 120 day period. This request is filed in conjunction with Section 73.3549.
47 CFR 73.69(d)(1) requires that AM licensees with directional antennas request to obtain temporary authority to operate with parameters at variance with licensed values when an authorized antenna monitor is replaced pending issuance of a modified license specifying new parameters.
47 CFR 73.69(d)(5) requires AM licensees with directional antennas to submit an informal request for modification of license to the FCC within 30 days of the date of antenna monitor replacement.
47 CFR 73.151(c)(1)(ix) states the orientation and distances among the individual antenna towers in the array shall be confirmed by a post-construction certification by a land surveyor (or, where permitted by local regulation, by an engineer) licensed or registered in the state or territory where the antenna system is located.
47 CFR 73.151(c)(2)(i) describes techniques for moment method modeling, sampling system construction, and measurements that must be taken as part of a moment method proof. A description of the sampling system and the specified measurements must be filed with the license application.
47 CFR 73.151(c)(3) states reference field strength measurement locations shall be established in directions of pattern minima and maxima. On each radial corresponding to a pattern minimum or maximum, there shall be at least three measurement locations. The field strength shall be measured at each reference location at the time of the proof of performance. The license application shall include the measured field strength values at each reference point, along with a description of each measurement location, including GPS coordinates and datum reference.
47 CFR 73.154 requires the result of the most recent partial proof of performance measurements and analysis to be retained in the station records and made available to the FCC upon request. Maps showing new measurement points shall be associated with the partial proof in the station's records and shall be made available to the FCC upon request.
47 CFR 73.155 states a station licensed with a directional antenna pattern pursuant to a proof of performance using moment method modeling and internal array parameters as described in § 73.151(c) shall recertify the performance of that directional antenna pattern at least once within every 24 month period.
47 CFR 73.155(c) states the results of the periodic directional antenna performance recertification measurements shall be retained in the station's public inspection file.
47 CFR 73.158(b) requires a licensee of an AM station using a directional antenna system to file a request for a corrected station license when the description of monitoring point in relation to nearby landmarks as shown on the station license is no longer correct due to road or building construction or other changes. A copy of the monitoring point description must be posted with the existing station license.
47 CFR 73.3538(b) requires a broadcast station to file an informal application to modify or discontinue the obstruction marking or lighting of an antenna supporting structure.
47 CFR 73.3549 requires licensees to file with the FCC requests for extensions of authority to operate without required monitors, transmission system indicating instruments, or encoders and decoders for monitoring and generating the Emergency Alert System codes. Such requests musts contain information as to when and what steps were taken to repair or replace the defective equipment and a brief
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 16, 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 Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. 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.
Among other rules changes, the
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 FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 13, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
On August 11, 2015, the Commission released the
On July 24, 2017, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology of the Federal Communications Commission released an Order, Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37, and, Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules for Low
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on September 20, 2017.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 11, 2017.
A.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 11, 2017.
A.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 11, 2017.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. Time will be available for public comment. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting. Comments should be submitted in writing by email to the contact person listed below. The deadline for receipt is October 11, 2017. Written comments must include full name, address, organizational affiliation, email address of the speaker, topic being addressed and specific comments. Written comments must not exceed one single-spaced typed page with 1-inch margins containing all items above. Only those written comments received 10 business days in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. Public comments made in attendance must be no longer than 3 minutes and the person giving comments must attend the public comment session at the start time listed on the agenda. Time for public comments may start before the time indicated on the agenda. The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web; for instructions and more information on ACIP please visit the ACIP Web site:
The meeting will be held on October 25, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., EDT, and October 26, 2017 8:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. EDT.
1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, CDC, Tom Harkin Global Communications Center, Kent `Oz' Nelson Auditorium.
Stephanie Thomas, ACIP Committee Management Specialist, CDC, NCIRD; email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the next public meeting date for the Medicare Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (the Panel) on September 25, 2017. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests (CDLTs).
Glenn C. McGuirk, Designated Federal Official (DFO), email
The Panel will make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator regarding payment for CDLTS for which CMS received no applicable information to calculate Medicare payment rates. The Panel did not deliberate and provide recommendations regarding the payment for these CDLTs during the Public Meeting Regarding New and Reconsidered Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test Codes for the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule for Calendar Year (CY) 2018 (2017 CLFS Public Meeting) and the Panel meeting on July 31 through August 1, 2017.
The Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is authorized by section 1834A(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395m-1), as established by section 216(a) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93, enacted on April 1, 2014). The Panel is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.
Section 1834A(f)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel established by the Secretary, composed of an appropriate selection of individuals with expertise in issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. Such individuals may include molecular pathologists, researchers, and individuals with expertise in laboratory science or health economics.
The Panel will provide input and recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS, on the following:
• The establishment of payment rates under section 1834A of the Act for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, including whether to use crosswalking or gapfilling processes to determine payment for a specific new test;
• The factors used in determining coverage and payment processes for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests; and
• Other aspects of the new payment system under section 1834A of the Act.
A notice announcing the establishment of the Panel and soliciting nominations for members was published in the October 27, 2014
The Panel charter provides that Panel meetings will be held up to 4 times annually and the Panel Chair will serve for a period of 3 years, which may be extended at the discretion of the Administrator or his or her duly appointed designee. Additionally, the Panel Chair facilitates the meeting and the Designated Federal Official (DFO) or DFO's designee must be present at all meetings.
Section 1834A of the Act requires revisions to the payment methodology for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid under the CLFS. We implemented the requirements of section 1834A of the Act in the CLFS final rule published in the June 23, 2016
Under 42 CFR 414.507(g), payment for a clinical diagnostic laboratory test for which CMS receives no applicable information is based on the crosswalking or gapfilling methods described in § 414.508(b)(1) and (2). On August 4, 2017, CMS posted on the CLFS Web site a list of laboratory codes for which CMS received no applicable information to calculate Medicare payment rates based on the weighted median of private payor rates. During the 2017 CLFS Public Meeting and the Panel meeting on July 31 through August 1, 2017, CMS discussed these codes, however, the Panel did not deliberate and provide recommendations regarding the payment for these codes. During this meeting, the Panel will address any issues relating to this list of laboratory test codes, including making
• Should the code be included on the CLFS?
• If the code should be included on the CLFS, what method of payment should be used to price the test codes (crosswalking or gapfilling, as required by 42 CFR 414.507(g))?
• If crosswalking, specify the crosswalk code(s).
The Panel will also provide input on other CY 2018 CLFS issues that are designated in the Panel's charter and specified on the meeting agenda.
The Agenda for the September 25, 2017, Panel Meeting will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics as designated in the Panel's charter:
• CY 2018 CLFS laboratory test codes for which CMS received no applicable information to calculate a Medicare payment rate and was posted on August 4, 2017, on the CMS Web site at
• Other CY 2018 CLFS issues designated in the Panel's charter and further described on our Agenda.
• CDLTs that will be discussed during this meeting is available on the CMS Web site, in the document entitled “2017 Clinical Laboratory Test Codes with No Data,” at
A detailed Agenda will be posted approximately 1 week before the meeting, on the CMS Web site at
Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.
This meeting is open to the public. As noted previously, the public may participate in the meeting via teleconference, webcast, and webinar. There will not be an in-person meeting location for this public Panel meeting. In addition, meeting registration is required to access the meeting.
The Panel's recommendations will be posted after the meeting on the CMS Web site at
The Panel meeting will be conducted only via webinar, webcast or by teleconference. The meeting registration information, teleconference dial-in instructions, and related webcast and webinar details will be posted on the meeting agenda, which will be available on the CMS Web site approximately 1 week prior to the meeting at
Registration is required to participate in this teleconference public meeting. Interested participants will be able to access the registration, teleconference, webcast, and webinar instructions, by following the instructions on the meeting agenda. There is no deadline for meeting registration.
There will be an opportunity during the meeting for public presentations and oral comments. During the meeting, an individual will be limited to 1 minute of comments for each laboratory test code. All presenters for the meeting must register and submit their presentations and comments electronically to our CLFS dedicated email mailbox,
The Secretary's Charter for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is available on the CMS Web site at
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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the rates for biosimilar user fees for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017 (BsUFA II), authorizes FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain activities in connection with biosimilar biological product development; review of certain applications for approval of biosimilar biological products; and each biosimilar biological product approved in a biosimilar biological product application.
BsUFA II directs FDA to establish, before the beginning of each fiscal year, the amount of initial and annual biosimilar biological product development (BPD) fees, the reactivation fee, and the biosimilar biological product application and program fees for such year. These fees apply to the period from October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018.
David Haas, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202I, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-9845.
Sections 744G, 744H, and 744I of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-51, 379j-52, and 379j-53), as amended by BsUFA II (title IV of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, Pub. L. 115-52), authorizes the program of fees for biosimilar biological products. Under section 744H(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, the initial BPD fee for a product is due when the sponsor submits an investigational new drug (IND) application that FDA determines is intended to support a biosimilar biological product application or within 5 calendar days after FDA grants the first BPD meeting, whichever occurs first. A sponsor who has paid the initial BPD fee is considered to be participating in FDA's BPD program for that product.
Under section 744H(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act, once a sponsor has paid the initial BPD fee for a product, the annual BPD fee is assessed beginning with the next fiscal year. The annual BPD fee is assessed for the product each fiscal year until the sponsor submits a marketing application for the product that is accepted for filing, or discontinues participation in FDA's BPD program.
Under section 744H(a)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, if a sponsor has discontinued participation in FDA's BPD program and wants to re-engage with FDA on development of the product, the sponsor must pay a reactivation fee to resume participation in the program. The sponsor must pay the reactivation fee by the earlier of the following dates: No later than 5 calendar days after FDA grants the sponsor's request for a BPD meeting for that product, or upon the date of submission by the sponsor of an IND describing an investigation that FDA determines is intended to support a biosimilar biological product application. The sponsor will be assessed an annual BPD fee beginning with the first fiscal year after payment of the reactivation fee.
BsUFA II also authorizes fees for certain biosimilar biological product applications and for each biosimilar biological product identified in an approved biosimilar biological product application (sections 744H(a)(2) and 744H(a)(3) of the FD&C Act). Under certain conditions, FDA may grant a small business a waiver from its first biosimilar biological product application fee (section 744H(d)(1) of the FD&C Act).
For FY 2018, the fee revenue amount is $45,000,000, adjusted as needed to reflect an updated assessment of the workload for the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications. FDA is adjusting the FY 2018 revenue amount to $40,214,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars) reflecting its updated assessment of the likely workload for the BsUFA program in FY 2018.
This document provides fee rates for FY 2018 for the initial and annual BPD fee ($227,213), for the reactivation fee ($454,426), for an application requiring clinical data ($1,746,745), for an application not requiring clinical data ($873,373), and for the program fee ($304,162). These fees apply to the period from October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018. For applications that are submitted for this period, this FY 2018 fee schedule must be used.
The fee revenue amount for FY 2018 is $45,000,000 adjusted for updated workload estimates (see sections 744H(b)(1) and 744H(c)(4) of the FD&C Act).
BsUFA II specifies that the annual fee revenue amount is to be further adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2019 through FY 2022 using two separate adjustments—one for personnel
BsUFA II specifies that for FY 2018, the fee revenue amount includes an adjustment to reflect an updated assessment of the workload for the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications (see section 744H(c)(4) of the FD&C Act).
In considering the appropriate FY 2018 fee revenue adjustment, FDA considered a range of factors including its best estimated level of submissions and activities (including forecasts of new BPDs, new 351(k)s, resubmitted 351(k)s, advisory committee meetings, interchangeability supplements, industry meetings, inspection activity, science and research activities, policy work, and other activities). Considering the totality of work forecasted for FY 2018 (and recognizing the inherent uncertainty of any forecast), FDA has determined that the appropriate adjusted level of the FY 2018 BsUFA fee revenue amount to be $40,214,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars). FDA will use this amount as the target revenue amount for FY 2018.
Under section 744H(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act, FDA must determine the percentage of the total revenue amount for a fiscal year to be derived from: (1) Initial and annual BPD fees and reactivation fees, (2) biosimilar biological product application fees, and (3) biosimilar biological product program fees. In establishing the fee amounts for the first year of BsUFA II, FDA considered how best to balance the fee allocation to provide stable funding and reasonable fee amounts, and utilized benchmarks as described below. In future years, FDA will consider the most appropriate means of allocating the fee amounts to collect the adjusted target revenue amount, subject to the relevant statutory provisions.
In establishing the biosimilar biological product application fee amount for FY 2018, FDA estimated the total number of fee-paying full applications equivalents (FAEs) it expects to receive in FY 2018. A full original 351(k) submission requiring clinical data counts as one FAE. An original 351(k) application not requiring clinical data counts as one-half of an FAE. An application that is withdrawn before filing, or refused for filing, counts as one-fourth of an FAE if the applicant initially paid a full application fee. An application that is withdrawn, or refused for filing, counts as one-eighth of an FAE if the applicant initially paid one-half of the full application fee.
FDA considered the likelihood of submissions based on various indicators including a survey of sponsors on their intention to submit a 351(k) application. Based on the available information, FDA estimates it may receive 13 351(k) applications in FY 2018.
FDA has determined that the amount of the biosimilar biological product application fee for FY 2018 is $1,746,745, which is estimated to provide a total of $22,707,685, representing 56 percent (rounded to the nearest one) of the FY 2018 target revenue amount.
BsUFA II renamed the product fee as the biosimilar biological product program fee (“program fee”); in addition, BsUFA II introduced a limitation that a person who is named as an applicant in a 351(k) application shall not be assessed more than five program fees for a fiscal year for biosimilar biological products identified in each 351(k) application (see FD&C Act section 744H(a)(3)(D)). The program fee was also modified so that applicants are assessed a program fee only for biosimilar biological products identified in a biosimilar biological product application approved as of October 1 of such fiscal year.
FDA estimates up to nine program fees will be invoiced in FY 2018, including currently approved products and products with the potential to be approved in pending applications with goal dates in FY 2017. For products invoiced in the FY 2018 regular billing cycle, FDA anticipates that zero program fees will be refunded. This prediction is based on observations dating to 2015, when the first biosimilar product was approved.
FDA has determined that the amount of the biosimilar biological product program fee for FY 2018 is $304,162, which is estimated to provide a total of $2,737,458, representing 7 percent (rounded to the nearest one) of the FY 2018 target revenue amount.
To estimate the number of participants in the BPD program in FY 2018, FDA must consider the number of new participants in the BPD program (initial BPD), the number of current participants (annual BPD), and the number of participants who will re-enter the BPD program (reactivation). FDA uses internal data, a survey of BPD sponsors, market sales data on reference products, and expected reference product expiration dates to estimate the total number of participants in the BPD program. FDA estimates 10 participants entering the BPD program, zero reactivations, and 55 participants to be invoiced for the annual BPD fee for a total of 65 participants in the BPD program in FY 2018.
The remainder of the target revenue of $14,768,857, or 37 percent (rounded to the nearest one), is to be collected from the BPD fees. Dividing this amount by the estimated 65 BPD fees to be paid equals a BPD fee amount of $227,213. The reactivation fee is set at twice the initial/annual BPD amount at $454,426. FDA estimates zero reactivation fees will be paid, as none have yet been paid in the history of the BsUFA program.
The fee rates for FY 2018 are provided in table 1.
The fees established in the new fee schedule apply to FY 2018,
The application fee for a biosimilar biological product is due upon submission of the application (see section 744H(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act).
To make a payment of the initial BPD, reactivation, or application fee, complete the Biosimilar User Fee Cover Sheet, available on FDA's Web site (
FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to use
Please include the user fee ID number on your check, bank draft, or postal money order, and make it payable to the Food and Drug Administration. Your payment can be mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979108, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. To send a check by a courier such as Federal Express or United Parcel Service, the courier must deliver the check and printed copy of the cover sheet to: U.S. Bank, ATTN: Government Lockbox 979108, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
If paying by wire transfer, please reference your unique user fee ID number when completing the transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please ask your financial institution about the fee and include it with your payment to ensure that your fee is fully paid. The account information for wire transfers is as follows: U.S. Department of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Acct. No.: 75060099, Routing No.: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. If needed, FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965.
FDA will issue invoices for annual BPD and program fees for FY 2018 under the new fee schedule in September 2017. Payment instructions will be included in the invoices, including payment due dates. If sponsors join the BPD program after the annual BPD invoices have been issued in September 2017, FDA will issue invoices in December 2017 to firms subject to fees for FY 2018 that qualify for the annual BPD fee after the September 2017 billing. FDA will issue invoices in December 2017 for any annual program fees for FY 2018 that qualify for fee assessments and were not issued in September 2017.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by October 16, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. Focus Groups as Used by the Food and Drug Administration (All FDA-Regulated Products), OMB Control Number 0910-0497.
FDA conducts voluntary focus group interviews on a variety of topics involving FDA-regulated products, including drugs, biologics, devices, food, tobacco, and veterinary medicine.
Focus groups provide an important role in gathering information because they allow for a more in-depth understanding of patients' and consumers' attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative studies. Focus groups serve the narrowly defined need for direct and informal opinion on a specific topic and as a qualitative research tool have three major purposes:
• To obtain patient and consumer information that is useful for developing variables and measures for quantitative studies,
• To better understand patients' and consumers' attitudes and emotions in response to topics and concepts, and
• To further explore findings obtained from quantitative studies.
FDA will use focus group findings to test and refine their ideas, but will generally conduct further research before making important decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting significant resources to support these policies.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the rates for prescription drug user fees for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (PDUFA VI), authorizes FDA to collect application fees for certain applications for the review of human drug and biological products, and prescription drug program fees for certain approved products. This notice establishes the fee rates for FY 2018.
Robert J. Marcarelli, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202F, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7223.
Sections 735 and 736 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379g and 379h, respectively) establish two different kinds of user fees. Fees are assessed on the following: (1) Application fees are assessed on certain types of applications for the review of human drug and biological products; and (2) prescription drug program fees are assessed on certain approved products (section 736(a) of the FD&C Act). When specific conditions are met, FDA may waive or reduce fees (section 736(d) of the FD&C Act).
For FY 2018 through FY 2022, the base revenue amounts for the total revenues from all PDUFA fees are established by PDUFA VI. The base revenue amount for FY 2018 is $878,590,000. The FY 2018 base revenue amount is to be adjusted for inflation and for the resource capacity needs for the process for the review of human drug applications (the capacity planning adjustment). An additional dollar amount specified in the statute (see section 736(b)(1)(F) of the FD&C Act) is then added to provide for additional full-time equivalent (FTE) positions to support PDUFA VI initiatives. The FY 2018 revenue amount may be adjusted further, if necessary, to provide for sufficient operating reserves of carryover user fees. Finally, the amount is adjusted to provide for additional direct costs to fund PDUFA VI initiatives. Fee amounts are to be established each year so that revenues from application fees provide 20 percent of the total revenue, and prescription drug program fees provide 80 percent of the total revenue.
This document provides fee rates for FY 2018 for an application requiring clinical data ($2,421,495), for an application not requiring clinical data ($1,210,748), and for the prescription drug program fee ($304,162). These fees are effective on October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018. For applications that are submitted on or after October 1, 2017, the new fee schedule must be used.
The base revenue amount for FY 2018 is $878,590,000 prior to adjustments for inflation, capacity planning, additional FTE, operating reserve, and additional direct costs (see section 736(b)(1) of the FD&C Act).
PDUFA VI specifies that the $878,590,000 is to be adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2018 using two separate adjustments—one for personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) and one for non-PC&B costs (see section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act).
The component of the inflation adjustment for payroll costs shall be one plus the average annual percent change in the cost of all PC&B paid per FTE positions at FDA for the first three of the preceding four FYs, multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA costs of the process for the review of human drug applications for the first three of the preceding four FYs (see section 736(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
Table 1 summarizes the actual cost and FTE data for the specified FYs and provides the percent changes from the previous FYs and the average percent changes over the first three of the four FYs preceding FY 2018. The 3-year average is 2.2354 percent.
The statute specifies that this 2.2354 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to the total FDA costs of the process for the review of human drug applications. Table 2 shows the PC&B and the total obligations for the process for the review of human drug applications for three FYs.
The payroll adjustment is 2.2354 percent from table 1 multiplied by 55.0885 percent (or 1.2314 percent).
The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment for non-payroll costs is the average annual percent change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers (Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV; not seasonally adjusted; all items; annual index) for the first 3 years of the preceding 4 years of available data multiplied by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B costs to total costs of the process for the review of human drug applications for the first three years of the preceding four FYs (see section 736(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). Table 3 provides the summary data for the percent changes in the specified CPI for the Washington-Baltimore area. The data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found on its Web site at:
The statute specifies that this 1.0139 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B to total costs of the process for the review of human drug applications obligated. Since 55.0885 percent was obligated for PC&B (as shown in table 2), 44.9115 percent is the portion of costs other than PC&B (100 percent minus 55.0885 percent equals 44.9115 percent). The non-payroll adjustment is 1.0139 percent times 44.9115 percent, or 0.4554 percent.
Next, we add the payroll adjustment (1.2314 percent) to the non-payroll adjustment (0.4554 percent), for a total inflation adjustment of 1.6868 percent (rounded) for FY 2018.
We then multiply the base revenue amount for FY 2018 ($878,590,000) by 1.016868, yielding an inflation-adjusted amount of $893,410,056.
The statute specifies that after $878,590,000 has been adjusted for inflation, the inflation-adjusted amount shall be further adjusted to reflect changes in the resource capacity needs for the process of human drug application reviews (see section 736(c)(2) of the FD&C Act). The statute prescribes an interim capacity planning adjustment be utilized until a new methodology can be developed through a process involving an independent evaluation as well as obtaining public comment. The interim capacity planning adjustment is applied to FY 2018 fee setting.
To determine the FY 2018 capacity planning adjustment, FDA calculated the average number of each of the five elements specified in the capacity planning adjustment provision: (1) Human drug applications (new drug applications (NDAs)/biologics license applications (BLAs)); (2) active commercial investigational new drug applications (INDs) (IND applications that have at least one submission during the previous 12 months); (3) efficacy supplements; (4) manufacturing supplements; and (5) formal meetings, type A, B, B(EoP), C, and written responses only (WRO) issued in lieu of such formal meetings, over the 3-year period that ended on June 30, 2016, and the average number of each of these elements over the most recent 3-year period that ended June 30, 2017.
The calculations are summarized in table 4. The 3-year averages for each element are provided in column 1 (“3-Year Average Ending 2016”) and column 2 (“3-Year Average Ending 2017”). Column 3 reflects the percent change from column 1 to column 2. Column 4 shows the weighting factor for each element. The weighting factor methodology has been updated for PDUFA VI. The previous methodology relied on the relative value of the standard costs for the elements included in the adjuster, and summed to 100 percent. The weighting factor now is the time invested in activities related to the element expressed as a percentage of total time invested in PDUFA activities, and will adjust only the costs attributed to the elements included in the model (hence the weighting factor does not now sum to 100 percent). Column 5 is the weighted percent change in each element. This is calculated by multiplying the weighting factor in each line in column 4 by the percent change in column 3. The values in column 5 are summed, reflecting an adjustment of 2.5090 percent (rounded).
Table 5 shows the calculation of the inflation and capacity planning adjusted amount for FY 2018. The FY 2018 base revenue amount, $878,590,000, shown on line 1 is multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor of 1.016868, resulting in the inflation-adjusted amount of $893,410,056 shown on line 3. That amount is then multiplied by one plus the capacity planning adjustment of 2.5090 percent, resulting in the inflation and capacity planning adjusted amount of $915,825,714 shown on line 5.
The capacity planning adjustment adds $22,415,658 to the fee revenue amount for FY 2018. This increase is driven by the fact that the counts of elements for 2017 (year ending June 30) are at or near the highest levels since the first incorporation of the workload adjuster in 2003. The NDA/BLA count in 2017 is equal to the highest annual number recorded since the advent of the workload adjuster methodology in 2003. Active commercial INDs, efficacy supplements, and meetings/WROs are higher in 2017 than in any previous year recorded in the workload adjuster (
Per the commitments made in PDUFA VI, this increase in the revenue amount will be allocated and used by organizational review components engaged in direct review work to enhance resources and expand staff capacity and capability (see II.A.4 on p.37 of the PDUFA VI commitment letter).
PDUFA VI provides an additional dollar amount for each of the next five fiscal years for additional FTE to support PDUFA VI enhancements outlined in the PDUFA VI commitment letter. The amount for FY 2018 is $20,077,793 (see section 736(b)(1)(F) of the FD&C Act). Adding this amount to the inflation and capacity planning adjusted revenue amount, $915,825,714, equals $935,904,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).
PDUFA VI provides for an operating reserve adjustment to allow FDA to increase the fee revenue and fees for any given fiscal year during PDUFA VI to maintain up to 14 weeks of operating reserve of carryover user fees. If the carryover balance exceeds 14 weeks of operating reserves, FDA is required to decrease fees to provide for not more than 14 weeks of operating reserves of carryover user fees.
To determine the 14-week operating reserve amount, the FY 2018 annual base revenue adjusted for inflation and capacity planning, $915,825,714, is divided by 52, and then multiplied by 14. The 14-week operating reserve amount for FY 2018 is $246,568,461.
To determine the end of year operating reserve amount, the Agency must assess actual operating reserve at the end of the third quarter of FY 2017, and forecast collections and obligations in the fourth quarter of FY 2017. The estimated end of year FY 2017 operating reserve is $279,856,044.
Because the estimated end of year FY 2017 PDUFA operating reserve exceeds the 14-week operating reserve for FY 2018, FDA will reduce the FY 2018 PDUFA fee revenue of $935,903,507 by $33,287,582, resulting in an adjusted fee revenue of $902,615,925.
PDUFA VI specifies that $8,730,000 be added in addition to the operating reserve adjustment to account for additional direct costs in FY 2018. This additional direct cost adjustment will be adjusted for inflation each year beginning in FY 2019.
The final FY 2018 PDUFA fee revenue is $911,346,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).
Application fees will be set to generate 20 percent of the total revenue amount, or $182,269,200 in FY 2018.
FDA will estimate the total number of fee-paying full application equivalents (FAEs) it expects to receive during the next FY by averaging the number of fee-paying FAEs received in the three most recently completed FYs. Prior year FAE totals are updated annually to reflect refunds and waivers processed after the close of the FY.
In estimating the number of fee-paying FAEs, a full application requiring clinical data counts as one FAE. An application not requiring clinical data counts as one-half of an FAE. An application that is withdrawn before filing, or refused for filing, counts as one-fourth of an FAE if the applicant initially paid a full application fee, or one-eighth of an FAE if the applicant initially paid one-half of the full application fee amount. Prior to PDUFA VI, the FAE amount also included supplements; supplements have been removed from the FAE calculation as the supplement fee has been discontinued in PDUFA VI.
As table 6 shows, the average number of fee-paying FAEs received annually in the most recent 3-year period is 75.271347 FAEs. FDA will set fees for FY 2018 based on this estimate as the number of full application equivalents that will pay fees.
The FY 2018 application fee is estimated by dividing the average number of full applications that paid fees over the latest 3 years, 75.271347, into the fee revenue amount to be derived from application fees in FY 2018, $182,269,200. The result is a fee of $2,421,495 per full application requiring clinical data, and $1,210,748 per application not requiring clinical data.
PDUFA VI renamed the product fee the “prescription drug program fee”; in addition, PDUFA VI introduced a limitation that an applicant will not be assessed more than five program fees for a fiscal year for prescription drug products identified in a single approved NDA or BLA (see section 736(a)(2)(C)). The program fee was also modified so that applicants are assessed a program fee only for prescription drug products identified in a human drug application approved as of October 1 of such fiscal year.
FDA estimates 2,461 program fees will be invoiced in FY 2018 before factoring in waivers, refunds, and exemptions. FDA approximates that there will be 27 waivers and refunds granted. In addition, FDA approximates that another 37 program fees will be exempted in FY 2018 based on the orphan drug exemption in section 736(k) of the FD&C Act. FDA estimates 2,397 program fees in FY 2018, after allowing for an estimated 64 waivers and reductions, including the orphan drug exemptions. The FY 2018 prescription drug program fee rate is calculated by dividing the adjusted total revenue from program fees ($729,076,800) by the estimated 2,397 program fees, for a FY 2018 program fee of $304,162.
The fee rates for FY 2018 are displayed in table 7:
The appropriate application fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application subject to fees under PDUFA that is received on or after October 1, 2017. Payment must be made in U.S. currency by electronic check, check, bank draft, wire transfer, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to use
Please include the user fee identification (ID) number on your check, bank draft, or postal money order. Mail your payment to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979107, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. If a check, bank draft, or money order is to be sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier should deliver your payment to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979107, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
If paying by wire transfer, please reference your unique user fee ID number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please
FDA plans to issue invoices and payment instructions for FY 2018 program fees under the new fee schedule in September 2017. Payment will be due on October 1, 2017. FDA plans to issue invoices in December 2017 for FY 2018 program fees that qualify for fee assessments after the initial 2017 billing.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Hurricane Harvey striking the U.S. Gulf Coast has resulted in severe disruptions in both the midstream and downstream sectors of the oil supply system. Some refineries and pipeline networks are shut-in or running at reduced rates. In addition, conditions exist for a potential imminent shortage of energy supply in areas predicted to be affected by Hurricane Irma. In light of the impact on the affected region's energy needs, the Department of Energy (DOE) has recommended that the Department of Homeland Security waive the requirements of the Jones Act in the interest of national defense to facilitate the transportation of the necessary volume of petroleum products for a 7-day period. Furthermore, the Department of Defense (DoD) has requested a 7-day waiver of the Jones Act in the interest of national defense, commencing immediately.
The Jones Act, 46 United States Code (U.S.C.) 55102, states “a vessel may not provide any part of the transportation of merchandise by water, or by land and water, between points in the United States to which the coastwise laws apply, either directly or via a foreign port” unless the vessel was built in and documented under the laws of the United States and is wholly owned by persons who are citizens of the United States. Such a vessel, after obtaining a coastwise endorsement from the U.S. Coast Guard, is “coastwise-qualified.” The coastwise laws generally apply to points in the territorial sea, which is defined as the belt, three nautical miles wide, seaward of the territorial sea baseline, and to points located in internal waters, landward of the territorial sea baseline.
The navigation laws, including the coastwise laws, can be waived under the authority provided by 46 U.S.C. 501. The statute provides in relevant part, “On request of the Secretary of Defense, the head of an agency responsible for the administration of the navigation or vessel-inspection laws shall waive compliance with those laws to the extent the Secretary considers necessary in the interest of national defense.” 46 U.S.C. 501(a).
For the reasons stated above, and in light of the request from the Department of Defense and the concurrence of the Department of Energy, I am exercising my authority to waive the Jones Act for a 7-day period, commencing immediately, to facilitate movement of refined petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel—to be shipped from New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Louisiana to South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Puerto Rico. This waiver applies to covered merchandise laded on board a vessel within the 7 day period of the waiver.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0131 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2014-0005. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits certain activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments by October 16, 2017.
•
•
•
Kathy Konishi, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, (719) 628-2670 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on applications for permits to conduct activities intended to promote recovery of endangered species. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
The ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications.
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. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Please make your comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service is publishing New York (NY) and New Jersey (NJ) State Historic Preservation Officers' (SHPOs) comments to the National Park Service Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) as well as responses to SHPOs' comments by the Keeper of the National Register (Keeper) prior to including the property in the National Register (NR).
This notice includes comments on the NR Nomination entitled “Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World” received by the FPO from the NY SHPO and the NJ SHPO, and the responses by the Keeper to these comments.
I am writing in response to your request for comments on the most recent revised draft for the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World Historic District. Ruth Pierpont has retired and I am the new Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for New York.
I have reviewed the file and our comments remain the same as they were for the two previous drafts. Unfortunately, the New York State Historic Preservation Office cannot support a period of significance that extends “in perpetuity” because we do not believe it is possible to evaluate the significance of events that have not yet occurred. Absent any theme, place, or time in which to place these unknown events, there is no possible context in which to evaluate their meaning. This opinion, which I support, is explained in more detail in Ruth Pierpont's letter of June 6, 2012.
We would also like to re-state our support of a period of significance for the landscape elements that extends to include the 1986 alterations for the statue's centennial. The fact that you have judged changes related to its centennial as non-contributing after extolling the statue's unending significance is among the reasons that we feel a period of “in perpetuity” is unwise. At the very least, it will generate unnecessary confusion in the compliance process as each newly-proposed project then automatically becomes significant, regardless of its effect on the resource.
The nomination as written is for a historic district. The Keeper notes that it is a long-established, and common NR program practice for an individually eligible or individually listed historic structure located within a larger NR-listed historic district to have a different period of significance than the district as a whole. Based on all relevant documentation and comments received for the nomination, the Keeper finds that the proposed end date for the period of significance for the district as a whole—1957—is appropriate. The Keeper concurs with the assessment stated in section 7, page 28 of the nomination, which states: “Changes made to key elements of the Liberty Island Grounds in the mid-1980s and alterations over time to contributing buildings and structures preclude the District's eligibility in the areas of Landscape Architecture or Architecture.” On balance, the Keeper also finds that the post-1957 changes in the landscape and buildings for the
In light of the above, the statement that “the
In addition, the further statement that “the land mass [of Liberty Island] is considered part of New York County, New York.” (Section 7, page 6) should also be revised. Only the portion of Liberty Island that reflects the island as it existed in 1834 lies within New York County, New York. In our previous comments on the earlier draft, we provided a map that delineated the area the island's fill, showing that New Jersey's territory comprises approximately 3.4 acres of the island's 14.1 acres. (see attachment)
New Jersey disagrees with the wording of footnote #5 (Section 7, page 6), which has a tendentious effect. The National Park Service has every reasonable basis to conclude, as New Jersey holds, that Liberty Island is situated in both states, and does not need to claim in this footnote that it is not pronouncing upon an issue that Section 2 of the document clearly does.
Your letter cites the 1998 Supreme Court decision in
Liberty Island is located within New York Harbor, one of the world's busiest shipping ports. It is accessed by ferries that run regularly from landings at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, and Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan, New York City. The island is manifestly flat, with an average elevation of about 15 feet (ft) above sea level. The landform is approximately a quarter-mile long and about .15-mile wide at its widest point. Two significant filling events, conducted on the west side of the island by the US Army during the First World War and on the northwestern end of the island by the National Park Service in the early 1950s, accreted the island to its current 14.1-acre form. Liberty Island is surrounded by New Jersey state waters. The Statue in its entirety was constructed and remains within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York. The entire island is administered by the National Park Service. The Statue of Liberty is located on the southern portion of Liberty Island and is immediately surrounded on the east, west, and south sides by grass lawns. Visitors arrive at the island's West Pier after a ferry trip from Manhattan or Jersey City and usually walk to the Statue on the island's primary circulation system, a wide paved system of malls and plazas that conveys visitors to the main entrance to the Statue. The malls and plazas are lined with linden trees and yew hedges that give the setting a park-like feel. A secondary circulation system consisting of interior paths and a perimeter promenade offers other views of the Statue and New York Harbor from a variety of vantage points. Operational facilities such as maintenance buildings and staff housing are located primarily in the northwest corner of the island and are screened from public view in most directions. (**
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 302104 (c)(5)-(6) of; 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Supplemental Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Finding the Sole Remaining Respondent in Default; Request for Written Submissions on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 10) finding the sole remaining respondent in default. The Commission requests written submissions, under the schedule set forth below, on remedy, public interest, and bonding.
Clint Gerdine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 8, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Electric Mirror, LLC of Everett, Washington (“Electric Mirror”) and Kelvin 42 LLC of Pensacola, Florida
The Commission previously terminated the investigation in part based on withdrawal of allegations concerning complainant Kelvin, respondent Majestic, and the '668 patent. Order No. 6 (June 19, 2017),
The Commission successfully served the complaint and notice of investigation on Project Light on May 3, 2017.
On August 3, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID, finding Project Light in default. No petition for review of the ID was filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
Section 337(g)(1) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) authorize the Commission to order relief against a respondent found in default, unless, after considering the public interest, it finds that such relief should not issue.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may: (1) Issue an order that could result in the exclusion of articles manufactured or imported by Project Light; and/or (2) issue cease and desist orders that could result in Project Light being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors that the Commission will consider include the effect that the exclusion order and/or cease and desists orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
The deadline for filing written submissions has been extended to the close of business on September 20, 2017. The deadline for filing reply submissions has been extended to the close of business on September 27, 2017. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadline stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1055”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
September 28, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
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.
September 29, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
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.
September 19, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
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.
September 22, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Producer Price Index Survey,” 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. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before October 16, 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-BLS, 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 Producer Price Index (PPI) Survey. The PPI is a measure of price movements as an indicator of inflationary trends for inventory valuation and as a measure of purchasing power of the dollar at the primary market level. The PPI is also used in market and economic research and as a basis for escalation in long-term contracts and purchase agreements. This information collection accumulates data for the ongoing monthly publication of the PPI family of indexes. The BLS Authorizing Statute authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 13, 2017.
Dave Schmidt, Office of Statistical Analysis, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone: (202) 693-1886; email:
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and 29 CFR part 1904 prescribe that certain employers maintain records of job-related injuries and illnesses. The injury and illness records are intended to have multiple purposes. One purpose is to provide data needed by OSHA to carry out enforcement and intervention activities to provide workers a safe and healthful work environment. The data are also needed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to report on the number and rate of occupational injuries and illnesses in the country. The data also provides information to employers and workers of the kinds of injuries and illnesses occurring in the workplace and their related hazards. Increased employer awareness should result in the identification and voluntary correction of hazardous workplace conditions. Likewise, workers who are provided information on injuries and illnesses will be more likely to follow safe work practices and report workplace hazards. This would generally raise the overall level of safety and health in the workplace. OSHA currently has approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection requirements contained in 29 CFR part 1904. That approval will expire on January 31, 2018, unless OSHA applies for an extension of the OMB approval. This notice initiates the process for OSHA to request an extension of the current OMB approval. This notice also solicits public comments on OSHA's existing paperwork burden estimates from those interested parties and seeks public responses to several questions related to the development of OSHA's estimates. Interested parties are requested to review OSHA's estimates, which are based upon the most current data available, and to comment on their accuracy or appropriateness in today's workplace situation.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in 29 CFR part 1904, Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. The Agency is requesting to reduce its current burden hour estimate associated with this Standard from 2,524,458 to 2,253,549 hours for a total reduction of 270,909 hours. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office
Comments and submissions are posted without change at:
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by October 16, 2017. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by October 16, 2017. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by October 16, 2017. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-541, 45 CFR 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of SR-ISE-2017-32, and to make non-substantive, technical amendments to the new By-Laws filed as part of that rule change proposal.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposal is to delay the implementation of SR-ISE-2017-32 (hereinafter, “Governance Proposal”) and to make non-substantive, technical amendments to the new By-Laws filed as part of that rule change. The changes are described in detail below.
The Exchange received approval of its Governance Proposal on July 31, 2017.
The Exchange also proposes to make minor clarifications to the proposed By-Laws that were filed as part of the Governance Proposal. First, the Exchange proposes to amend the last sentence in proposed By-Law Article III, Section 5(c) by changing the current reference therein to Rule 4200 of the Rules of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC to Rule 5605. The definition of “independent director” is set forth in Rule 5605 of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, and not Rule 4200, so the Exchange seeks to correct this reference in its proposed By-Laws. The Exchange also proposes to correct certain typos in the same sentence to indicate that the portion therein that starts with “the Regulatory Oversight Committee shall consist of three members . . .” is a separate, new sentence.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to replace the first sentence in proposed By-Law Article VIII, Section 1 with the following: “These By-Laws may be altered, amended, or repealed, or new By-Laws may be adopted, by a resolution adopted by the Board at any regular or special meeting of the Board or a written agreement executed and delivered by the Company Member.” By-Law Article VIII, Section 1, which contains By-Law amendment provisions, is intended to authorize amendments to the By-Laws by either the Company Member (
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal does not impose any significant burden on competition because the Governance Proposal and the proposed non-substantive changes to the By-Laws will apply to all market participants in a uniform manner once implemented.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32),
Innovator Capital Management, LLC (“Innovator”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Innovator ETFs Trust (formerly, Academy Funds Trust) (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Quasar Distributors, LLC (the “Distributor”), a Delaware limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on June 7, 2017, and amended on September 8, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 5, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: The Trust and Innovator, 120 N. Hale Street, Suite 200, Wheaton, Illinois 60187; the Distributor, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Hae-Sung Lee, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-7345, or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Acting Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets and investment positions (“Portfolio Instruments”). Each Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Instruments that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Instruments and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fourteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons, or second-tier affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio Instruments currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On July 13, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As described in more detail below, the Exchange proposes to enhance the operation of the Nasdaq Closing Cross by extending the time period during which members may submit LOC Orders,
Currently, Exchange Rule 4702(b)(12)(A) provides that LOC Orders may be entered between 4:00 a.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:50 p.m. ET. The Exchange proposes to amend this rule to permit LOC orders to be entered between 3:50 p.m. ET and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. ET, provided that there is a First Reference Price.
The Exchange also proposes to amend its rules relating to the LULD Closing Cross
Currently, Exchange Rule 4702(b)(12)(B) states that, following the Nasdaq Closing Cross, a Closing Cross/Extended Hours Order
Finally, Exchange Rule 4702(b)(12)(B) currently provides that certain Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders entered between 3:50 p.m. and the time of the Nasdaq Closing Cross are treated as IO Orders. The Exchange proposes to remove this functionality.
Currently, Exchange Rule 4752(a)(2) provides that the Order Imbalance Indicator for the Nasdaq Opening Cross includes, among other things, the Current Reference Price, the Imbalance, and the number of paired shares. The definitions of Imbalance,
Similarly, Exchange Rule 4754(a)(7) provides that the Order Imbalance Indicator for the Nasdaq Closing Cross includes, among other things, the Current Reference Price, the Imbalance, and the number of paired shares. The definitions of Imbalance,
The Exchange proposes to implement the functionality described in the proposal in a symbol-by-symbol rollout in either Q3 or Q4 2017.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to permit members to submit LOC Orders between 3:50 p.m. and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. if there is a First Reference Price. The Exchange also proposes to re-price LOC Orders entered during this time period to the First Reference Price if their limit price is more aggressive than the First Reference Price. The Commission believes that these changes could encourage additional participation in the Nasdaq Closing Cross, reduce imbalances, and promote price discovery, without creating a significant impact on the price of the Nasdaq Closing Cross. In addition, as discussed above, the Exchange proposes to permit MOC, LOC, and IO Orders intended for the Closing Cross that are entered into the system and placed on the book prior to the Trading Pause to remain on the book and participate in an LULD Closing Cross. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to permit LOC Orders entered prior to 3:55 p.m. to participate in a Contingency Closing Cross. The Commission believes that these changes are consistent with the proposal to permit members to submit LOC Orders between 3:50 p.m. and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m., and would allow these LOC Orders to participate in an LULD Closing Cross or Contingency Closing Cross.
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 4702(b)(12)(B) to identify the order types that are currently not eligible to operate as Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders, provide that Market Maker Peg Orders cannot operate as Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders, and delete a reference to Retail Order and RPI Order. The Commission believes that these proposed changes are reasonable. The Commission notes that, according to the Exchange, Market Maker Peg Orders are designed to assist Nasdaq members in meeting their quoting obligations, and not to submit interest flagged with an on-close instruction.
Moreover, as discussed above, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 4702(b)(12)(B) to eliminate provisions that would treat certain Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders entered between 3:50 p.m. and the time of the Nasdaq Closing Cross as IO Orders. The Commission notes that the proposal would allow Closing Cross/Extended Hours Orders entered between 3:50 p.m. and immediately prior to 3:55 p.m. to operate as LOC Orders,
Finally, as discussed above, the Exchange proposes to exclude Open Eligible Interest and Close Eligible Interest from certain information disseminated in the Order Imbalance Indicator for the Nasdaq Opening Cross and the Nasdaq Closing Cross. The Commission notes that, as proposed, the Imbalance, Current Reference Price, and paired shares calculations would not include types of orders that may be executed in the continuous market before the Opening Cross or the Closing Cross.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of Creation Units for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Acquiring Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds.
The Vanguard Group, Inc. (“Initial Adviser”), a Pennsylvania corporation registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Vanguard Marketing Corporation (“Distributor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Initial Adviser and a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and Vanguard Admiral Funds, Vanguard Bond Index Funds, Vanguard California Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard Charlotte Funds, Vanguard Chester Funds, Vanguard Convertible Securities Fund, Vanguard Explorer Fund, Vanguard Fenway Funds, Vanguard Fixed Income Securities Funds, Vanguard Horizon Funds, Vanguard Index Funds, Vanguard International Equity Index Funds, Vanguard Malvern Funds, Vanguard Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Funds, Vanguard Money Market Reserves, Vanguard Montgomery Funds, Vanguard Morgan Growth Fund, Vanguard Municipal Bond Funds, Vanguard New Jersey Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard New York Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard Ohio Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard Pennsylvania Tax-Free Funds, Vanguard Quantitative Funds, Vanguard Scottsdale Funds, Vanguard Specialized Funds, Vanguard STAR Funds, Vanguard Tax-Managed Funds, Vanguard Trustees' Equity Fund, Vanguard Valley Forge Funds, Vanguard Variable Insurance Funds, Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund, Vanguard Wellington Fund, Vanguard Whitehall Funds, Vanguard Windsor Funds, and Vanguard World Fund, each a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series (each a “Trust,” and together, the “Trusts”).
The application was filed on August 17, 2016, and amended on May 19, 2017, August 22, 2017, and September 7, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Brian P. Murphy, Esq., The Vanguard Group, Inc., Mail Stop V26, P.O. Box 2600, Valley Forge, PA 19482-2600.
Asen Parachkevov, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities, instruments, other assets or positions (“Portfolio Positions”). Each Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Positions and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Acquiring Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Acquiring Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons, or second tier affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those Portfolio Positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from an Acquiring Fund, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Acquiring Fund.
9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 30b2-1 (17 CFR 270.30b2-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The Commission estimates that there are 2,401 funds, with a total of 11,555 portfolios, that are governed by the rule. For purposes of this analysis, the burden associated with the requirements of rule 30b2-1 has been included in the collection of information requirements of rule 30e-1 and Form N-CSR, rather than the rule. The Commission has, however, requested a one hour burden for administrative purposes.
The collection of information under rule 30b2-1 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 30b2-1 is not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (each, a “BDC”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment funds and accounts.
Medley Capital Corporation (“MCC”); Medley SBIC, LP (“Medley SBIC”); Medley SBIC GP, LLC (the “SBIC General Partner”); Medley LLC; MCC Advisors LLC (“MCC Advisors”); Medley Capital LLC, MOF II Management LLC, and MOF III Management LLC (collectively, the “Existing Affiliated Investment Advisers”); MOF II GP LLC, MOF III GP LLC, and Medley Credit Strategies GP, LLC (collectively, the “Existing General Partners”); Medley Opportunity Fund III LP, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Credit Strategies (KOC) LLC (collectively, the “Existing Affiliated Funds”); Sierra Income Corporation (“Sierra”); SIC Advisors LLC (“SIC Advisors”); Sierra Total Return Fund (“STRF”); STRF Advisors LLC (“STRF Advisors”); Sierra Opportunity Fund (“SOF”); and SOF Advisor LLC (“SOF Advisors”).
The application was filed on May 24, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/o Brooke Taube, Medley Capital Corporation, Seth Taube, Sierra Income Corporation, Sierra Total Return Fund, and Sierra Opportunity Fund, 280 Park Avenue, 6th Floor East, New York, NY 10017.
Hae-Sung Lee, Attorney-Adviser, at (202)
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. MCC is an externally managed, non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under the Act.
2. Applicants represent that Medley SBIC was organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the state of Delaware and is licensed by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to operate under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“SBA Act”), as a small business investment company (each such licensed entity, an “SBIC Subsidiary”). Applicants state that Medley SBIC will not be registered under the Act based on the exclusion from the definition of investment company contained in section 3(c)(7). The SBIC General Partner was organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the state of Delaware and is the general partner of Medley SBIC. Applicants represent that Medley SBIC is functionally a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCC because MCC and the SBIC General Partner (which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCC) own all of the equity and voting interests in Medley SBIC.
3. Sierra is an externally managed, non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under the Act. Sierra's investment objective is to generate current income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in the debt of privately-held U.S. companies with a focus on senior secured debt, second lien debt and, to a lesser extent, subordinated debt. Sierra's board of directors (the “Sierra Board”) currently consists of five members, three of whom are Independent Directors. Each of the Principals serves as an interested director on the Sierra Board.
4. STRF is an externally managed, non-diversified, closed-end management investment company registered under the Act. STRF will be operated as an interval fund. STRF's investment objective is to generate total return through a combination of current income and long-term capital appreciation by investing in a portfolio of debt securities and equities. STRF's board of directors (the “STRF Board”) currently consists of five members, three of whom are Independent Directors. Each of the Principals serves as an interested trustee on the STRF Board.
5. SOF is an externally managed, non-divsersified, closed-end management investment company registered under the Act. SOF will be operated as an interval fund. SOF's investment objective is to generate current income and, as a secondary objective, long-term capital appreciation. SOF's board of directors (the “SOF Board”) currently consists of five members, three of whom are Independent Directors. Each of the Principals serves as an interested trustee on the SOF Board.
6. MCC Advisors is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and serves as the investment adviser to MCC. SIC Advisors is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and serves as the investment adviser to Sierra. STRF Advisors is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and serves as an investment adviser to STRF. SOF Advisors is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and serves as an investment adviser to SOF. The Existing Affiliated Investment Advisers are registered under the Advisers Act and currently serve as investment advisers to the Existing Affiliated Funds. Medley LLC, which is controlled by the Principals, controls each of the Existing Affiliated Investment Advisers.
7. Medley LLC, and its direct, wholly-owned subsidiary, Medley Capital LLC, from time to time, may hold various financial assets in a principal capacity (together, in such capacity, “Existing Medley Proprietary Accounts” and together with any Future Medley Proprietary Account (as defined below), the “Medley Proprietary Accounts”).
8. Each of the Existing Affiliated Funds is a separate legal entity and is excluded from the definition of “investment company” under section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act.
9. Applicants seek to supersede the Prior Order
10. Applicants state that a Regulated Entity may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
11. In selecting investments for each Regulated Entity, the Regulated Entity Advisers will consider the investment objective, investment policies, investment position, capital available for investment, and other factors relevant to the respective Regulated Entities they advise. The Regulated Entity Advisers expect that any portfolio company that is an appropriate investment for a Regulated Entity should also be an appropriate investment for one or more other Regulated Entities and/or one or more Affiliated Funds, with certain exceptions based on available capital or diversification.
12. All subsequent activity (
13. Applicants state that none of the Principals will benefit directly or indirectly from any Co-Investment Transaction (other than by virtue of the ownership of securities of MCC and the Affiliated Investment Advisers) or participate individually in any Co-Investment Transaction. In addition, no Independent Director will have any direct or indirect financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction or any interest in any portfolio company, other than through an interest (if any) in the securities of a Regulated Entity.
1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Entities that are registered closed-end investment companies. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit participation by a registered investment company and an affiliated person in any “joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan,” as defined in the rule, without prior approval by the Commission by order upon application.
2. Similarly, with regard to BDCs, Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by such BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the Affiliated Funds and the other Regulated Entities could be deemed to be a person related to each Regulated Entity in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control with such Regulated Entity.
3. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered
4. Rule 17d-1, as made applicable to BDCs by section 57(i), prohibits any person who is related to a BDC in a manner described in section 57(b), acting as principal, from participating in, or effecting any transaction in connection with, any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan in which the BDC or a company controlled by such BDC is a participant, absent an order from the Commission. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation by the BDC or controlled company in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
5. Applicants state that they expect that co-investment in portfolio companies by the Regulated Entities and the Affiliated Funds will increase the number of favorable investment opportunities for the Regulated Entities and that the Co-Investment Program will be implemented only if the Required Majority of the applicable Regulated Entity approves it.
6. Applicants submit that the Required Majority's approval of each Co-Investment Transaction before investment, and other protective conditions set forth in the application, will ensure that the applicable Regulated Entity will be treated fairly. Applicants state that the Regulated Entities' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
7. Under condition 14, if the Regulated Entity Advisers or the Principals, or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Regulated Entity Advisers or the Principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of a Regulated Entity (“Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the condition. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Independent Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of the Regulated Entity Advisers or the Principals to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Independent Directors will evaluate and approve any independent third party, taking into accounts its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time a Regulated Entity Adviser or an Affiliated Investment Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Entity that falls within the then-current Objectives and Strategies of a Regulated Entity,
2. (a) If a Regulated Entity Adviser deems a Regulated Entity's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for such Regulated Entity, it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for such Regulated Entity.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by Regulated Entity Advisers to be invested by the Regulated Entities in such Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by each Participating Fund, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, the amount proposed to be invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each participating party's capital available for investment in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each. The Regulated Entity Advisers will provide the respective Eligible Directors with information concerning each party's available capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of such Regulated Entity's investments for compliance with these allocation procedures.
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Regulated Entity Advisers will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the amount proposed to be invested by each Regulated Entity and any Participating Fund, to the Eligible Directors of the each participating Regulated Entity for their consideration. A Regulated Entity will co-invest with another Regulated Entity and/or any Participating Fund only if, prior to participating in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority of the Regulated Entity concludes that:
(i) The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Entity and its stockholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Entity or its stockholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the transaction is consistent with
(A) the interests of the Regulated Entity's stockholders; and
(B) the Regulated Entity's then-current Objectives and Strategies.
(iii) the investment by another Regulated Entity or one or more Participating Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Entity, and participation by such Regulated Entity is not on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of any Participating Fund or other Regulated Entity; provided that, if any Participating Fund or other Regulated Entity, but not the Regulated Entity itself, gains the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company, such event shall not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority from reaching the conclusions required by this condition (2)(c)(iii), if
(A) the Eligible Directors shall have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the Regulated Entity Adviser agrees to, and does, provide periodic reports to the Board of the applicable Regulated Entity with respect to the actions of such director or the information received by such board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that any other Regulated Entity or any Participating Fund or any affiliated person of either receives in connection with the right of a Participating Fund or
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Entity will not benefit the Regulated Entity Advisers, the Affiliated Funds or other Regulated Entities, or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the other parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (a) to the extent permitted by condition 13; (b) to the extent permitted by sections 17(e) or 57(k), as applicable; (c) indirectly, as a result of an interest in securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction; or (d) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Entity has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The Regulated Entity Advisers will present to the Board of each Regulated Entity, as applicable, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by the Affiliated Funds and other Regulated Entities during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Entity's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the respective Regulated Entity, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Entity. All information presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Entity and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made pursuant to condition 8 below,
6. A Regulated Entity will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date and registration rights will be the same for such Regulated Entity as for the Participating Funds and/or other Regulated Entities. The grant to an Affiliated Fund or another Regulated Entity, but not such Regulated Entity, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Regulated Entity or Participating Fund elects to sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, then:
(i) the investment adviser to such Regulated Entity or Participating Fund will notify each other Regulated Entity that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the investment adviser to each other Regulated Entity that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction will formulate a recommendation as to participation by such Regulated Entity in the disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Entity will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to any Participating Funds and any other Regulated Entities.
(c) A Regulated Entity may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Entity and the Participating Funds in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board of the applicable Regulated Entity has approved as being in the best interests of the applicable Regulated Entity the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the applicable Regulated Entity is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the applicable Regulated Entity Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to such Regulated Entity's participation to the Eligible Directors, and such Regulated Entity will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in such Regulated Entity's best interests.
(d) Each Regulated Entity and each of the Participating Funds will bear its own expenses in connection with any such disposition.
8. (a) If any Regulated Entity or Participating Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, then:
(i) the investment adviser to such Regulated Entity or Participating Fund will notify each other Regulated Entity that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) the investment adviser to each other Regulated Entity that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction will formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed investment, by such Regulated Entity.
(b) A Regulated Entity may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Entity and Participating Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; (ii) the Board of the applicable Regulated Entity has approved as being in the best interests of such Regulated Entity the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application); and (iii) the Board of the applicable Regulated Entity is provided on a quarterly basis with a list of all Follow-On Investments made in accordance with this condition. In all other cases, the applicable Regulated Entity Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to such Regulated Entity's participation to the Eligible Directors, and such Regulated Entity will participate in such follow-on investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in such Regulated Entity's best interests.
(c) If, with respect to any follow-on investment:
(i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated Entities' and the Participating Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the follow-on investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Regulated Entity Adviser to be invested by each Regulated Entity in such Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the Participating Funds and/or other Regulated Entity, collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the investment opportunity, then the
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and be subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Independent Directors of each Regulated Entity will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Entities or Affiliated Funds that the Regulated Entity considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Regulated Entity considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Independent Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Entities of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Entity will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) as if each of the Regulated Entities were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f).
11. No Independent Director of a Regulated Entity will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act) of, any of the Affiliated Funds.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the 1933 Act) shall, to the extent not payable by the Regulated Entity Advisers or the Affiliated Investment Advisers under their respective investment advisory agreements with the Regulated Entities and the Participating Funds, be shared by the applicable Regulated Entities and the Participating Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of their securities held or being acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee (including break-up or commitment fees but excluding brokers' fees contemplated by section 57(k)(2) or 17(e)(2), as applicable) received in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction will be distributed to the applicable Regulated Entities and the Participating Funds on a pro rata basis based on the amounts each invested or committed, as the case may be, in such Co-Investment Transaction. If any transaction fee is to be held by a Regulated Entity Adviser or an Affiliated Investment Adviser pending consummation of the transaction, the fee will be deposited into an account maintained by the Regulated Entity Adviser or such other adviser, as the case may be, at a bank or banks having the qualifications prescribed in Section 26(a)(1), and the account will earn a competitive rate of interest that will also be divided pro rata among each applicable Regulated Entity and each Participating Fund based on the amount each invests in such Co-Investment Transaction. None of the Affiliated Funds, Regulated Entity Advisers, Affiliated Investment Advisers, or any affiliated person of any of the Regulated Entities will receive additional compensation or remuneration of any kind (other than (a) in the case of the Regulated Entities and the Participating Funds, the pro rata transaction fees described above and fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C) and (b) in the case of the Regulated Entity Advisers and the Affiliated Advisers, investment advisory fees paid in accordance with the Regulated Entities' and Affiliated Funds' governing agreements) as a result of or in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction.
14. If the Regulated Entity Advisers, the Principals, any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Regulated Entity Advisers or the Principals, and the Affiliated Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of a Regulated Entity (“Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any other matter under either the Act or applicable State law affecting the Board's composition, size or manner of election.
15. The Medley Proprietary Accounts will not be permitted to invest in a Potential Co-Investment Transaction except to the extent the aggregate demand from the Regulated Entities and the other Affiliated Funds is less than the total investment opportunity.
16. The Regulated Entity Advisers and the Affiliated Investment Advisers will maintain written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the foregoing conditions. These policies and procedures will require, among other things, that each Regulated Entity Adviser will be notified of all Potential Co-Investment Transactions that fall within the then-current Objectives and Strategies of any Regulated Entity it advises and will be given sufficient information to make its independent determination and recommendations under conditions 1, 2(a), 7 and 8.
17. Each Regulated Entity's chief compliance officer, as defined in Rule 38a-1(a)(4), will prepare an annual report for its Board each year that evaluates (and documents the basis of that evaluation) the Regulated Entity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the application and the procedures established to achieve such compliance.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change by DTC would revise the text of the pricing schedule (“Pricing Schedule”) for Security Position Reports (“SPRs”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
SPRs, which are available by subscription on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis,
The fee for Special Requests is $120 per report, per date requested. However, DTC is proposing to provide the Muni Discount for Special Muni Requests to reduce the Users' cost burden relating to high volume Special Muni Requests. The Muni Discount would be applied to Special Requests, using the calculation described further below, when the following criteria (“Muni Discount Criteria”) are met:
(i) The CUSIP numbers entered for Special Muni Requests share the same six digit base and the same “Dated Date”;
(ii) the Special Muni Requests are entered on the same Business Day with the same request start date by the same User.
Under the proposed Muni Discount, a User would be charged the standard $120 fee for a Special Muni Request, but the User would receive for free up to nine additional Special Muni Requests that have the same Muni Discount Criteria as the first Special Muni Request. In other words, if a User purchases one Special Muni Request, the User would receive nine more for free, where those additional nine have the same Muni Discount Criteria. If the User submits an eleventh Special Muni Request that meets the same Muni Discount Criteria as the first, the User would be charged another fee of $120 for that request, but then the next nine Special Muni Requests with the same Muni Discount Criteria would be free of charge. In the same way, if the User submits a new Special Muni Request with different Muni Discount Criteria than the prior submissions, a fee of $120 would be charged and the next nine Special Muni Requests conforming to the same criteria would be free of charge.
DTC believes that applying the Muni Discount to Special Muni Requests would allow DTC to align the fees charged to Users for Special Muni Requests with DTC's costs of providing the related reports, because Special Muni Requests by a User for a single base CUSIP often involve a high volume of requests made simultaneously, allowing the requests to be fulfilled at the same time (rather than, for example, individually on separate days) and therefore resulting in a lower cost per request to DTC than low volume requests or otherwise related requests that may be spread over multiple days.
In connection with this proposal, DTC would update the Special Requests section of the Pricing Schedule to reflect details of the Muni Discount as described above.
The proposed rule change would be effective upon filing.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would place a burden on competition because it would not have an effect on User access to SPRs. The proposed rule change may promote competition by allowing Users to make Special Requests in higher volumes as needed to conduct their shareholder communication and other related activities without incurring significantly higher DTC fees.
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds.
Innovator ETFs Trust (formerly, Academy Funds Trust) (“Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, Innovator Capital Management, LLC (“Innovator”), Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Quasar Distributors, LLC (“Distributor”), a Delaware limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on June 7, 2017, and amended on September 8, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 5, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Innovator and the Trust, 120 N. Hale Street, Suite 200, Wheaton IL, 60187; the Distributor, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6819, or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Acting Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond generally to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the Application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the Application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fourteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The Application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second-Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“Paperwork Reduction Act”) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 30b1-8 under the Act [17 CFR 270.30b1-8], entitled “Current Report for Money Market Funds,” provides that every registered open-end management investment company, or series thereof, that is regulated as a money market fund under rule 2a-7 [17 CFR 270.2a-7], that experiences any of the events specified on Form N-CR [17 CFR 274.222], must file with the Commission a current report on Form N-CR within the time period specified in that form. The information collection requirements for rule 30b1-8 and Form N-CR are designed to assist Commission staff in its oversight of money market funds and its ability to respond to market events. It also provides investors with better and timelier disclosure of potentially important events. Finally, the Commission is able to use the information provided on Form N-CR in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles. The rule imposes a burden per report of approximately 8.5 hours and $840, so that the total annual burden for the estimated 37 reports filed per year on Form N-CR is 315 hours and $31,080.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is based on communications with industry representatives, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study.
The collection of information on Form N-CR is mandatory for any fund that holds itself out as a money market fund in reliance on rule 2a-7. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden(s) of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
On July 10, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 489 (17 CFR 230.489) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
The Commission received an average of 30 Form F-N filings from 22 unique filers each year for the last three years (2014-2016). The Commission has previously estimated that the total annual burden associated with information collection and Form F-N preparation and submission is one hour per filing. Based on the Commission's experience with disclosure documents generally, the Commission continues to believe that this estimate is appropriate. Thus the estimated total annual burden for rule 489 and Form F-N is 30 hours.
Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of rule 489 and Form F-N is mandatory to obtain the benefit of the exemption. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that Celerity Partners SBIC, L.P., 11150 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1470, Los Angeles, CA 90025, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the sale of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act, Section 107.730(a), you must not self-deal to the prejudice of a Small Business, the Licensee, its shareholders or partners, or SBA., and Section 107.730(e)(3), Associate must not receive any income or anything of value from the Portfolio Concern unless it is for your benefit, with the exception of director's fees, expenses, and distributions based upon the Associate's ownership interest in the Concern. The transaction is brought within the purview of Sections 107.730(a) and 107.730(e)(3) of the Regulations because which constitutes Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules. Celerity Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to sell eStudy Site Inc. (“eSS), 292 Euclid Ave, Suite 225, San Diego, California 92114, with NRI Clinical Research (“NRI”) and, Meridien Research, Inc. (“Meridien”). Because the Associates, Mark Benham and Matt Kraus, will receive proceeds from their investments and carried interests from Meridien and NRI, and a transaction fee, this transaction constitutes Conflict of Interest requiring SBA's prior written exemption.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that Ticonderoga SBIC, L.P., 25 Braintree Hill Park, Suite 200, Braintree, MA 02184, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the sale of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730(a), you must not self-deal to the prejudice of a Small Business, the Licensee, its shareholders or partners, or SBA.
The transaction is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) of the Regulations because which constitutes Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules. Ticonderoga SBIC, L.P. proposes to sell eStudySite (“eSS), 292 Euclid Ave, Suite 225, San Diego, California 92114, with Meridien Research, Inc. (“MRI”) and NRI Clinical Research (“NRI”). Because the Associates, including Ticonderoga K1, L.P., Ticonderoga KII L.P., and Craig Jones, will receive proceeds from their investments in NRI, this transaction constitutes Conflict of Interest requiring SBA's prior approval.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., One North Franklin Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60606, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of lnterest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity security financing to Bully Pulpit Interactive, LLC, 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036 (“BPI”).
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a) and (d) of the Regulations because Svoboda Capital Fund IV, L.P. an Associate of Svoboda Capital Fund IV SBIC, L.P., owns more than ten percent of BPI, and therefore this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring prior SBA approval.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within fifteen days of the date of this publication, to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Decatur Central Railroad, L.L.C. (DC), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from Topflight Grain Cooperative, Inc. (Topflight), the assets of a 15.52-mile rail line between milepost 12.11 near Cisco, Piatt County, Ill., and milepost 27.63 (Green's Switch) near Decatur, Macon County, Ill. (the line).
DC describes itself as a joint venture between OmniTRAX Holdings Combined, Inc. and Topflight Grain Cooperative, Inc., each of which owns 50% of DC. DC states that Topflight has agreed to convey its ownership interest in the line to DC.
DC certifies that the agreement between Topflight and OmniTRAX does not contain any provision that prohibits DC from interchanging traffic with a third party or limits DC's ability to interchange traffic with a third-party railroad.
DC also certifies that the proposed transaction will not result in DC's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier and that the projected annual revenue of DC will not exceed $5 million.
The transaction may be consummated on or after September 28, 2017, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice 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 21, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36139, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Karl Morell & Associates, Suite 440, 440 1st Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
According to DC, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
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), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twelfth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Twelfth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary. This is a subcommittee to RTCA.
The meeting will be held October 5-6, 2017 12:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held virtually at:
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Twelfth RTCA SC-230 Airborne Weather Detection Systems Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 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 October 4, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0747 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Julia Greenway (202) 267-3896, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final. The actions relate to the proposed Improvement Project on State Route 55 (SR-55) between Interstate 405
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency Actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before February 12, 2018. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For Caltrans: Charles Baker, Branch Chief—Specialist Unit, Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation—District 12, 1750 East 4th Street, Santa Ana, California, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., (657) 328-6139,
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of California. Caltrans proposes to add one general-purpose lane in the northbound and southbound directions, construct a second high-occupancy lane (HOV) in each direction between the I-405 and I-5 HOV direct connectors, and restore existing auxiliary lanes. Additionally, northbound auxiliary lanes will be constructed between the MacArthur Boulevard and Dyer Road, and the Dyer Road and Edinger Avenue interchanges. The restored auxiliary lane between the Edinger Avenue and McFadden Avenue interchanges would be extended to the northbound I-5 connector and the northbound McFadden Avenue onramp would be restricted to the northbound I-5 connector only. As a result, access from the McFadden Avenue on-ramp to northbound SR-55 and southbound I-5 would be eliminated. In the southbound direction, the existing auxiliary lane between the McFadden Avenue and Edinger Avenue interchanges would be restored to match the existing condition. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Initial Study (IS) with Negative Declaration (ND)/Environmental Assessment (EA) with Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), approved on August 31, 2017. The Final IS/EA with ND/FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The Caltrans Final IS/EA with ND/FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at:
(1) Council on Environmental Quality regulations;
(2) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
(3) Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21);
(4) Department of Transportation Act of 1966;
(5) Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
(6) Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
(7) Noise Control Act of 1970;
(8) 23 CFR part 772 FHWA Noise Standards, Policies and Procedures;
(9) Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f);
(10) Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987;
(11) Endangered Species Act of 1973;
(12) Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
(13) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;
(14) Historic Sites Act of 1935; and,
(15) Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project on the Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 56 (SR 56) from postmile (PM) I-5: R32.7 to R34.8 and SR 56: 0.00 to 2.5 in the County of San Diego, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Mr. Bruce April, Deputy District Director, Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation, 4050 Taylor Street, MS 242, San Diego, CA 92110, Regular Office Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Telephone number (619) 688-0100, email
FHWA's responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being, or was, carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act amended 23 U.S.C. 327. Under NEPA Assignment, FHWA assigned and Caltrans assumed all of the USDOT Secretary's responsibilities under NEPA. FHWA and Caltrans executed NEPA Assignment MOU dated December 23, 2016 that identifies FHWA's and Caltrans' roles and responsibilities, describes NEPA Assignment requirements, and officially extends Caltrans' use of the 23 U.S.C.
The Caltrans Final FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
1. Council on Environmental Quality regulations;
2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
3. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU);
4. Department of Transportation Act of 1966;
5. Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
6. Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990;
7. Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 and 1987;
8. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972;
9. Endangered Species Act of 1973;
10. Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
11. Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981;
12. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
13. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970;
14. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966;
15. Historic Sites Act of 1935;
16. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976;
17. Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992;
18. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands;
19. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species;
20. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and,
21. Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that the Power and Communication Contractors Association (PCCA) has requested an exemption from the requirement that a motor carrier install and require each of its drivers to use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record the driver's hours-of-service (HOS) no later than December 18, 2017. PCCA requests the exemption for all operators of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in the power and communications construction industry. Construction contractors spend considerable time working off-road on varying jobsites, and a single CMV may have several different drivers over the course of a day, moving the vehicle short distances around the jobsite. Because of the limited time within a workday that their drivers spend driving on public roads, PCCA states that ELD and record of duty status (RODS) requirements for drivers in their industries do not result in a significant safety benefit. PCCA's drivers would remain subject to the standard HOS limits and maintain a paper RODS for HOS compliance. PCCA believes that the exemption, if granted, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the exemption. FMCSA requests public comment on PCCA's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2017-0243 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2017-0243), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The PCCA represents contractors, manufacturers, and distributors who build and repair America's power and communications infrastructure, including electric transmission, distribution, and substation facilities and broadband, telephone, and cable television systems. PCCA members also engage in directional drilling, local area and premises wiring, and improvements to water and sewer infrastructure, as well as gas and oil pipelines. While PCCA is not aware of a confirmed, finite number of drivers in the power and communication construction industry, they believe there are tens of thousands of them across the U.S. These are construction workers—driving is incidental to their core job function.
PCCA contractors maintain a wide range of different vehicles, including dump trucks, water-related vehicles, skid trucks, and flatbeds used to carry heavy excavation equipment. Buses are also used to transport workers to and from a construction jobsite.
The exemption would apply to drivers in the power and communications construction industry, who operate under significantly different circumstances than interstate truck drivers. CMV operators working on broadband and/or electric infrastructure projects commonly drive multiple vehicles for short distances within a single day, and a single vehicle is often driven by multiple drivers.
Numerous exemptions to the ELD and RODS requirements are available depending on varying job functions, including for those operating 8 days in 30-day period, short haul 100 air-mile rule, 150 air-mile rule, utility service vehicle (USV) exemption, ready mix trucks, pipeline welders, etc. The complexity of navigating the ELD and RODS requirements and exemptions make compliance difficult, exposing their drivers to unknowing violations. According to PCCA, application of these requirements to their drivers is confusing even for law enforcement officials. When contrasted against the requirements' minimal benefit to the safety of their drivers, application of the ELD and RODS requirements to their construction personnel proves to be quite unnecessary.
Drivers in the power and communication construction industry commonly operate under the USV exemption as defined under § 395.2 of FMCSRs, which exempts drivers of a USV “used in the furtherance of repairing, maintaining, or operating any structures or any other physical facilities necessary for the delivery of public utility services, including the furnishing of electric, gas, water, sanitary sewer, telephone, and television cable or community antenna service.” Requiring installation of ELD technology in USVs operated in an industry that is normally exempt from HOS requirements because of the critical nature of its work presents an unnecessary burden.
PCCA's application requests an exemption from requirements to use ELDs in lieu of written logs to document their RODS under 49 CFR 395.8(a). The exemption they are requesting would be limited to their drivers: (1) Who are on duty no more than 14 hours per day; (2) Who drive less than 200 miles per day, regardless of start and stop location; and (3) For whom the driving of CMVs is incidental to their core employment.
According to PCCA, exempting power and communication contractors from ELD requirements would not compromise the safety of drivers in the industry in any way. All rules related to the short-haul exemption would still apply, and drivers would continue to comply with written RODS requirements when short-haul limitations are exceeded. Unlike long-haul interstate truckers, drivers in the construction industry meet a variety of job functions and spend the vast majority of their time on a jobsite within a short distance of their daily assembly point, not on public roads and highways. Power and communication contractors would continue to meet all other HOS requirements overseen by FMCSA.
PCCA believes an equivalent level of safety will be achieved if drivers in the power and communication construction industry are exempt from ELD requirements as described above.
A copy of PCCA's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War, previously scheduled to be held at the Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30303, on September 13-15, 2017,
For more information, please contact Leslie N. Williams, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Benefits Assistance Service, at (202) 530-9219 or via email at
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of intent and request for comments.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to waive the application of applicable Federal regulations (see
This notice is applicable on October 16, 2017, without further notice, unless VA receives a significant adverse comment by October 16, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted by email through
Christopher Britt, Office of General Counsel (02-EST), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, 202-461-7637 (this is not a toll free number).
The Department is committed to ensuring that veterans are protected from predatory behavior from for-profit educational institutions. We must also ensure that all employees abide by government ethics laws, particularly the laws that prohibit employees from using their public office for private gain. This is the bedrock of our ethics program: Placing loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above personal interests.
One statute pertaining to for-profit educational institutions—38 U.S.C. 3683—was passed by Congress decades ago, before there were conflict-of-interest laws applicable to all Executive Branch employees, and was intended to prevent corruption in connection with VA's administration of benefits under VA education benefits programs. In current practice, however, that statute has illogical and unintended consequences, in that it requires the removal of any VA employee who has any connection to a for-profit educational institution that students attend under a VA education benefits program. As an example, a literal reading of the statute would require the removal of a VA lab technician who takes a class, on her own time and using her own money, at a for-profit educational institution that is also attended by students using VA education benefits. It would also require the removal of a VA physician who teaches an introductory biology class at such a school. The statute applies retroactively, in that it requires VA to remove employees who have no current connection to a for-profit institution but took or taught a class at one at any time during their VA employment. Applying this statute to VA employees who have not engaged in any real conflict of interest would be unjust and detrimental to VA's ability to serve veterans.
The VA Inspector General (IG) recently issued a report finding that two VA employees violated 38 U.S.C. 3683 when they taught as adjunct faculty at for-profit educational institutions that have students using VA education benefits. Fortunately, that IG report recommended that VA issue waivers, as the statute specifically allows, for employees whose connection with for-profit institutions creates no actual conflict of interest and poses no harm to veterans.
Therefore, under the authority granted by 38 U.S.C. 3683(d) and 38 CFR 21.4005, the Secretary intends to waive the application of 38 U.S.C. 3683(a) for all VA employees who receive any wages, salary, dividends, profits, gratuities, or services from, or own any interest in, a for-profit educational institution in which an eligible person or veteran is pursuing a program of education using VA education benefits, as long as employees abide by the conflict of interest laws discussed in the following paragraph, as the Secretary has determined that no detriment will
Employees covered by this waiver must continue to abide by 18 U.S.C. 208, which prohibits an employee from participating personally and substantially in VA particular matters that will directly and predictably affect the employee's financial interests. Such financial interests include owning a share of, being employed by, negotiating for employment with, or having an arrangement for future employment with an outside entity. Employees must also continue to abide by 5 CFR 2635.502, which requires employees to recuse themselves from VA matters when an employee's participation would cause a reasonable person to question the employee's impartiality. Specifically, if an employee has a “covered relationship” with a for-profit educational institution (for example, as a consultant or contractor), that employee must not participate in any VA matters to which the for-profit educational institution is a party, if such participation would cause a reasonable person to question the employee's impartiality.
The provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3683 apply to VA employees who have a connection to a for-profit institution in which an eligible person or veteran was pursuing a program of education or course “under this chapter [
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. Vivieca Wright Simpson, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 8, 2017, for publication.
| 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 |