| Page Range | 43667-43825 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 43825 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism | |
| 82 FR 43692 - Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ethnological Materials From the Republic of Mali | |
| 82 FR 43759 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 82 FR 43759 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 43797 - Information Collection: Fitness-for-Duty Programs | |
| 82 FR 43768 - Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 43733 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Regulatory Amendment 6 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
| 82 FR 43778 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 43745 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 82 FR 43772 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43772 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43774 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43807 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 43747 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Membership | |
| 82 FR 43791 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Notification of Change of Mailing or Premise Address | |
| 82 FR 43784 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe of Washington | |
| 82 FR 43710 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 43740 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Notice of Correction to the Final Results of the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 82 FR 43810 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 43817 - Hours of Service; YRC Worldwide Inc. Application for an Exemption From Certain Electronic Logging Device Requirements | |
| 82 FR 43815 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 43808 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 43809 - Medical Review Board (MRB) Meeting: Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43767 - Administering the Hatch-Waxman Amendments: Ensuring a Balance Between Innovation and Access; Public Meeting; Request for Comments; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 43701 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule To List the Maui Dolphin as Endangered and the South Island Hector's Dolphin as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 82 FR 43782 - Waiver of Compliance With Navigation Laws; Hurricanes Harvey and Irma | |
| 82 FR 43764 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Experimental Study on Warning Statements for Cigarette Graphic Health Warnings | |
| 82 FR 43770 - Flavor Developer and Manufacturer Site Tours Program | |
| 82 FR 43780 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 43751 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43822 - Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee, Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43739 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 43778 - Availability of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular, Guidance Implementing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 | |
| 82 FR 43753 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Study of Higher Education Articulation Agreements Covering the Early Care and Education Workforce | |
| 82 FR 43807 - Twenty Second Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) | |
| 82 FR 43820 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 82 FR 43761 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Establishing and Maintaining Lists of United States Manufacturers/Processors With Interest in Exporting Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition-Regulated Products to China | |
| 82 FR 43792 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43746 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Individual Fishing Quotas for Pacific Halibut and Sablefish in the Alaska Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 43744 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Region Logbook Family of Forms | |
| 82 FR 43779 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0100 | |
| 82 FR 43730 - Exchange of Coin | |
| 82 FR 43798 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Annual Reporting (Form 5500 Series) | |
| 82 FR 43757 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 43758 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 43738 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43807 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting in Advance of Meeting of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group I, Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises | |
| 82 FR 43819 - Proposed Collection of Information: List of Data (A) and List of Data (B) | |
| 82 FR 43820 - Proposed Collection of Information: Information Collected Through Investigative Inquiry Forms | |
| 82 FR 43759 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10179-First National Bank of Georgia Carrollton, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 43754 - North East Wisconsin Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment | |
| 82 FR 43755 - Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 43755 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign Utility Company Status | |
| 82 FR 43754 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 43682 - Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles | |
| 82 FR 43690 - Wool Products Labeling; Fur Products Labeling; Textile Fiber Products Identification | |
| 82 FR 43711 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries | |
| 82 FR 43791 - NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43804 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 43780 - Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation (Sulphur, LA), as a Commercial Gauger | |
| 82 FR 43781 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Bellingham, WA), as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory | |
| 82 FR 43771 - National Institute of Mental Health; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43773 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43771 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43772 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43770 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43778 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43775 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43777 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43771 - Center For Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43775 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43773 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43800 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 43800 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 43800 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 43743 - Marine Mammals and Endangered Species | |
| 82 FR 43800 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of Fees To Increase the Priority Customer Taker Fee for Regular Orders in SPY | |
| 82 FR 43757 - Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft of a Proposed Technical Bulletin, Assigning Assets to Component Reporting Entities | |
| 82 FR 43790 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 43788 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 43747 - Limitations of Duty- and Quota-Free Imports of Apparel Articles Assembled in Beneficiary Sub-Saharan African Countries From Regional and Third-Country Fabric | |
| 82 FR 43752 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Quick Response Information System (QRIS) 2017-2020 System Clearance | |
| 82 FR 43670 - Water and Waste Loans and Grants | |
| 82 FR 43782 - National Protection and Programs Directorate; Notification of Issuance of Binding Operational Directive 17-01 and Establishment of Procedures for Responses | |
| 82 FR 43759 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 43760 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 43756 - Release of Draft Documents Related to the Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Oxides | |
| 82 FR 43699 - Air Plan Approval; Maine; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report | |
| 82 FR 43802 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trade Centers, To Account for IEX as a Primary Listing Market and To Amend Certain Rules To Reflect the Name Change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American | |
| 82 FR 43794 - Department of the Air Force; Robins Air Force Base, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 43695 - Procedural Rules and Regulations | |
| 82 FR 43697 - Procedural Rules and Regulations; Corrections | |
| 82 FR 43715 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43720 - Guidance on the Definition of Registered Form | |
| 82 FR 43789 - Notice of Availability of Application by the Governor of Connecticut To Include Portions of the Housatonic River in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System | |
| 82 FR 43713 - Onions Grown in South Texas; Increased Assessment Rate | |
| 82 FR 43671 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43674 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43667 - Pecans Grown in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas; Establishment of Assessment Rates | |
| 82 FR 43738 - Departmental Management, Office of Procurement and Property Management; Notice of Request for Comments on Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 43677 - Airworthiness Directives; Ameri-King Corporation Emergency Locator Transmitters |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the American Pecan Council (Council) to establish the initial assessment rates for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal years at $0.03 per pound for improved varieties, $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties, and $0.02 per pound for substandard pecans handled under the pecan marketing order (order). The Council locally administers the order and is comprised of growers and handlers of pecans operating within the production area and a public member. Assessments upon pecan handlers will be used by the Council to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal year begins October 1 and ends September 30. The assessment rates will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective September 20, 2017.
Jennie M. Varela, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 986 (7 CFR part 986), regulating the handling of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, pecan handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rates as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable pecans beginning with the 2016-17 fiscal year that began on October 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule establishes assessment rates for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal years at $0.03 per pound for improved varieties and $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties and for substandard pecans handled. The assessment rates are applicable to all assessable pecans beginning on October 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The order provides authority for the Council, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Council are growers and handlers of pecans and a public member. They are familiar with the Council's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their respective local areas and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rates. The assessment rates are formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal years, the Council recommended, and USDA approved, assessment rates that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Council or other information available to USDA.
The Council met on November 17, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $6,000,000 and assessment rates of $0.03 per pound for improved varieties, $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties, and $0.02 per pound for substandard pecans handled. These are the first budget of
The major expenditures recommended by the Council for the 2016-17 year include $3,850,000 for marketing and promotion, $900,000 for administration, $250,000 for reporting and statistics, and $200,000 for compliance.
The assessment rates recommended by the Council were derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of pecans. Pecan shipments for the year are estimated at 260,000,000 pounds, with about 75 percent, or an estimated 195 million pounds of improved varieties and about 25 percent of native and seedling varieties and substandard pecans. This should provide adequate assessment income to cover the budgeted expenses and establish the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. As the Council has no established reserve, its budget also allocated $500,000 for reserve funds to be carried into the next fiscal year. This will be within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately three fiscal years' expenses. If the assessment rates generate less money than is anticipated, the Council and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will adjust the budget accordingly.
Although these assessment rates will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Council will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rates. The dates and times of Council meetings are available from the Council or USDA. Council meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Council recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Council's budget for subsequent fiscal years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 2,500 producers of pecans in the production area and approximately 250 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average grower price for pecans during the 2015-16 season was $2.20 per pound, and 254 million pounds were utilized. The value for pecans in that year totaled $558.8 million ($2.20 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds). Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan producers provides a return per grower of $223,520. Using the average price and utilization information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of growers have annual receipts of less than $750,000.
Evidence presented at the order promulgation hearing indicates an average handler margin of $0.58 per pound for in-shell pecans for an estimated handler price of $2.78 per pound. With a total 2015 production of 254 million pounds, the total value of production in 2015 was $706.12 million ($2.78 per pound multiplied by 254 million pounds). Taking the total value of production for pecans and dividing it by the total number of pecan handlers provides a return per handler of $2,824,480. Using this estimated price, the utilization volume, number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of producers and handlers of pecans grown in the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas may be classified as small entities.
This rule establishes the assessment rates to be collected from handlers for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal years. The Council unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $6,000,000 and an assessment rate of $0.03 per pound for improved varieties, $0.02 per pound for native and seedling varieties, and $0.02 per pound for substandard pecans handled. The quantity of pecans for the 2016-17 year is estimated at 260,000,000 pounds, with about 75 percent, or 195 million pounds, of improved varieties and about 25 percent of native and seedling varieties and substandard pecans. This should provide adequate assessment income to cover the budgeted expenses and establish the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. As the Council has no established reserve, its budget also allocated $500,000 for reserve funds to be carried into the next fiscal year. This will be within the maximum permitted by the order of approximately three fiscal years' expenses. If the assessment rates generate less money than is anticipated, the Council and AMS will adjust the budget accordingly.
The major expenditures recommended by the Council for the 2016-17 fiscal year include $3,850,000 for marketing and promotion, $900,000 for administration, $250,000 for reporting and statistics, and $200,000 for compliance. The Council's budget also includes a reserve of $500,000.
These are initial budget expenditures and assessment rates for the order. The order establishes a range of assessment rates that are permissible during the initial four years of the order. Specifically, improved varieties shall be initially assessed at $0.02 to $0.03 per pound and native, seedling, and substandard pecans shall be initially assessed at $0.01 to $0.02 per pound. Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rates, the Council considered information from various sources, such as the Council's Governance Committee and its Marketing, Research, and Development Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the pecan industry.
The Council also considered different assessment levels. Some members expressed concern regarding a $0.02 assessment on native, seedling, and substandard pecans, given the prices of those pecans. Another member suggested the idea of establishing a lower rate for substandard pecans. The need to collect sufficient assessments to fund the start-up costs for the order and the development of a marketing program was also noted. After consideration and discussion, the Council unanimously supported the levels as recommended.
A communication from one of the states in the production area that recommended postponing the
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming production year indicates the grower price for the 2016-17 season could range between $1.73 and $2.31 per pound for improved varieties, and between $0.88 and $1.36 per pound for native and seedling pecans. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-17 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between 1.3 and 1.7 percent for improved pecans and 1.5 and 2.2 percent for native and seedling pecans.
This action establishes an assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Council's meeting was widely publicized throughout the pecan industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Council deliberations on all issues. Like all Council meetings, the November 17, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0291 “Pecans Grown in AL, AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, KS, LA, MO, MS, NC, NM, OK, SC and TX.” No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. However, the Council is recommending reporting requirements, to include information on pecans received, shipped, exported, or in inventory, which would facilitate the collection of the assessments. These requirements are being considered under a separate action. Should any changes to the information collection requirements become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pecan handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying 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.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
Both comments expressed support for finalizing the proposed rule as issued. Each commenter valued the opportunity to market and promote pecans. One comment further highlighted the industry's need for product research for market and economic development. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Council and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Pecans, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 986 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after October 1, 2016, assessment rates of $0.03 per pound for pecans classified as improved, $0.02 per pound for pecans classified as native and seedling, and $0.02 per pound for pecans classified as substandard pecans are established.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is revising the regulation used to process water and waste disposal loans and grants to remove the reference to the 11-GO Bond Buyer Index. This change will allow the Agency to respond to changes in indices and potentially reduce the budget authority necessary to fund the program.
This rule is effective October 19, 2017.
Susan Woolard, Community Programs Specialist, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1570, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0787, telephone: (202) 720-9631. Email contact
This final rule has been determined to be non-significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The affected programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Program under 10.760, Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities. This catalog is available electronically through the free CFDA Web site on the Internet at
This program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RUS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each loan in the manner delineated in 2 CFR part 200 and 400.
The Agency has determined that this final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. Consequently, the Agency will not conduct tribal consultation sessions.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this final rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) No retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) Administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit in court challenging action taken under this rule.
The final rule has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, Environmental Policies and Procedures. The Agency has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, RUS generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires RUS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602) (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This final rule; however, is not subject to the APA under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) and 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) nor any other statute.
It has been determined, under E.O. 13132, Federalism, that the policies contained in this final rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
The Agency is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible and 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.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the paperwork burden associated with this final rule has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the currently approved OMB Control Number 0572-0121. The Agency has determined that the changes in the rule do not substantially change current data collection.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited basis will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. Submit your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by:
(1) Mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by Fax (202) 690-7442 or Email at
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
The Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) water and waste program is administered by Water and Environmental Programs (WEP). The water and waste loan and grant programs are authorized by various sections of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926
Agency regulations provide for a three-tier interest rate structure for its direct water and waste disposal loans. The tiers are market, intermediate, and poverty. Currently, market rate is set using as guidance the average of the Bond Buyer (11-GO Bond) Index for the four weeks prior to the first Friday of the last month before the beginning of the quarter, with intermediate and poverty rates set as percentages of the market rate at 80 percent and 60 percent respectively. In addition to providing the interest rate for Agency direct loans, these rates play an integral part in the modeling of the subsidy rate for the program.
In order to more effectively manage the subsidy rate and reduce the need for appropriations, beginning in fiscal year 2018, the Agency is issuing a final rule to use the 20-GO Bond Index to set the market rate. In order for the Agency to respond more quickly to indices changes, the Agency is issuing a final rule to change the current reference from a specific bond index to reflect that the Agency is using as guidance the average of the Bond Buyer Index (available in any Agency office or the program's Web site) for the four weeks prior to the first Friday of the last month before the beginning of the quarter.
To implement this change the Agency will publish this as a final rule. The Administrative Procedure Act exempts from prior notice rules, “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)).
This section outlines how rates are set for Agency loans, qualifications for each interest rate, and, repayment terms. The Agency revises § 1780.13(e) to remove the reference to the 11-GO Bond index in order to allow greater flexibility to respond to changes in bond indices.
Community development, Credit, Loan programs, Rural areas, Waste treatment and disposal, Water supply and treatment.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 5 U.S.C. 301, 7 U.S.C. 1989, and 16 U.S.C. 1005, RUS amends Chapter XVII, Title 7, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 16 U.S.C. 1005.
(d)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-13-17, which applied to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
This AD is effective October 24, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 24, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of August 19, 2014 (79 FR 41098, July 15, 2014).
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 to supersede AD 2014-13-17, Amendment 39-17893 (79 FR 41098, July 15, 2014) (“AD 2014-13-17”). AD 2014-13-17 applied to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0080, dated April 21, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Two successive failures have been reported of a Right Hand #1 inner tank fuel pump, Part Number (P/N) 2052Cxx series (where “xx” represents any numerical combination). These occurrences were solved by replacement of the pump, associated circuit breaker (CB) and the alternating current (AC) bus load relay.
Investigations determined that, in case of loss of one phase on the pump supply and the associated CB failing to trip, the fuel pump thermal fuses may not operate as quickly as expected.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an overheat condition of the fuel pump in excess of 200 °C, possibly resulting in a fuel tank explosion and loss of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A28W002-13 providing instructions for functional tests of CBs.
As a temporary measure, EASA issued AD 2013-0163 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-13-17] to require repetitive functional tests of the affected fuel pump power supply CBs, and, depending on findings, replacement.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, a new standard of fuel pump was developed, which improves the thermal protection, thereby preventing the potential unsafe condition and cancelling the need for repetitive functional tests of the affected CBs, as required by EASA AD 2013-0163. Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-28-0093, SB A300-28-6111, SB A300-28-9025 and SB A310-28-2176 to provide instructions for this upgrade of the fuel pump for all positions on the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements EASA AD 2013-0163, which is superseded, and requires installation of the new standard fuel pump, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive functional tests.
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. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
FedEx Express stated that it concurs with the proposed corrective actions.
One commenter, Anani Fleur, suggested that the FAA set up files for every airplane by serial number. The commenter stated that the file system should be computerized and that FAA employees could do this.
We acknowledge the commenter's suggestion. Since it does not address the unsafe condition identified in this AD, we have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments 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, which describes procedures for installing new standard fuel pumps with improved thermal protection. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Service Bulletin A300-28-0093, dated December 15, 2015.
• Service Bulletin A300-28-6111, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
• Service Bulletin A310-28-2176, dated December 15, 2015.
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 128 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-13-17 and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2014-13-17 is $85 per product, per inspection cycle.
We also estimate that it will take up to 21 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost per product is not available. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be up to $228,480, or up to $1,785 per product.
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 24, 2017.
This AD replaces 2014-13-17, Amendment 39-17893 (79 FR 41098, July 15, 2014) (“AD 2014-13-17”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
(5) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
(6) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the right inner tank fuel pump. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fuel pump from overheating, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-13-17, with a new terminating action.
(1) Within 6 months or 500 flight hours after August 19, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-13-17), whichever occurs first: Do a functional test of the circuit breakers for the fuel pump power supply, as identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A28W002-13, dated July 23, 2013. Repeat the functional test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months or 500 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until the fuel pump installation required by paragraph (h) of this AD is accomplished.
(i) For Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203 airplanes: Inner and outer pump, No. 1 and No. 2, left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side.
(ii) For Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, B4-203, B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes:
(A) Inner and outer pump, No. 1 and No. 2, LH and RH; and
(B) Center pump, LH and RH.
(iii) For Airbus Model A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes:
(A) Inner and outer pump, No. 1 and No. 2, LH and RH;
(B) Center pump, LH and RH; and
(C) Trim tank pump No. 1 and No. 2.
(2) If, during any functional test required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, any circuit breaker fails any functional test, or any circuit breaker is found to be stuck closed, before further flight, replace the affected circuit breaker with a serviceable part, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A28W002-13, dated July 23, 2013.
(3) The replacement of one or more circuit breakers as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD does not terminate the repetitive functional tests required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD: Install a fuel pump having a new standard at each applicable location on the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD. Accomplishment of the installation of fuel pumps having the new standard terminates the requirement for the repetitive functional tests required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0093, dated December 15, 2015.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6111, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2176, dated December 15, 2015.
After the installation of any fuel pump having a new standard on an airplane, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no person may install any fuel pump having part number 2052Cxx (where “xx” represents any numerical combination) on that airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for the installation required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if the installation was done before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6111, dated December 15, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0080, dated April 21, 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 (m)(5) and (m)(6) 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 24, 2017.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0093, dated December 15, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6111, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2176, dated December 15, 2015.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 19, 2014 (79 FR 41098, July 15, 2014).
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A28W002-13, dated July 23, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) 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
(6) 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.
(7) 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 24, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 24, 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 AD 2016-0129, 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 relating to Falcon 900EX Easy, Falcon 900LX and Falcon 900DX variants 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 2013-0052 [which corresponds to AD 2014-16-27, Amendment 39-17951 (79 FR 51071, August 27, 2014) (“2014-16-27”)] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in DA Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113875) at revision 7.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 9 of DA Falcon 900EX Easy/900LX/900DX AMM chapter 5-40 (DGT 113875) (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 2013-0052, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.
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. 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 9, dated November 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX Maintenance Manual. The 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 63 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 24, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2014-16-27, Amendment 39-17951 (79 FR 51071, August 27, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-27”).
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, serial number (S/N) 97 and S/N 120 and higher, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before November 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 9, dated November 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 9, dated November 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX 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 requirements of AD 2014-16-27.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0129, 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 9, dated November 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 900EX EASy, Falcon 900LX, and Falcon 900DX 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), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Ameri-King Corporation emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) as installed on various aircraft. This AD was prompted by multiple reports of ELT failure and a report of noncompliance to quality standards and manufacturer processes related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the ELT for discrepancies; repetitive checks, tests, and verifications, as applicable, to ensure the ELT is functioning; and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also allows for optional replacement of affected ELTs and, for certain aircraft, optional removal of affected ELTs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 24, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 24, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Ameri-King Corporation ELTs as installed on various aircraft. 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. Alaska Seaplanes supported the NPRM. Alaska Seaplanes stated that, based on its experience with Ameri-King Corporation ELTs, “this is a good and needed AD.”
Richard Koehler, an FAA-certificated mechanic and pilot, requested we withdraw the NPRM. The commenter stated he is strongly opposed to issuance of the NPRM for the following reasons:
• The commenter stated the “Discussion” paragraph of the NPRM specifies that there have been 73 reported ELT failures and questioned if all were Ameri-King units or a mix of the older technical standard order (TSO)-C91 units and the newer TSO-C91a units. The commenter stated the TSO-C91a ELT was a huge technological advance over the old TSO-C91 units. The commenter noted that he replaced four defective units (TSO-C91) with AK-450 units (TSO-C91a), which, in his experience, have never had a failure. The commenter questioned how the failure rate of the AK-450 compares to other manufacturers' units.
• The commenter stated that the NPRM appears to be part of “the ongoing vendetta against Ameri-King by the 406 ELT mafia,” which is trying to force all general aviation aircraft to adopt 406 ELTs. The commenter stated that the performance of the AK-450 is at least ten times better than the old C91 units. The commenter recommended that the NPRM should “get rid of poor ELTs” by forcing the replacement of the tens of thousands of C91 units that are still available.
• The commenter stated that the inspection called out in the proposed AD is redundant to the tests required in 14 CFR 91.207(d), which requires a 12-calendar-month inspection cycle on all installed ELTs.
We do not agree to withdraw the NPRM. We find that sufficient data exist to demonstrate that Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) and AK-451-( ) series ELTs could fail. We consider this an unsafe condition since nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or impede the rescue of the flightcrew and passengers after an emergency landing. The reported ELT failures were not a mix of TSO-C91 units and TSO-C91a units. As stated in the NPRM, we received 73 reports of ELT failures for Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) series ELTs, which are approved under TSO-C91a, and AK-451-( ) series ELTs, which are approved under TSO-C91a and TSO-C126.
We are also aware of the noncompliance to quality standards and manufacturer processes for Ameri-King Corporation ELTs, which could result in
We might also consider further rulemaking to address other ELTs if we receive data that substantiate an unsafe condition exists for those ELTs. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.
Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for Ameri-King Corporation (Ameri-King), submitted comments intended to serve as Ameri-King's public comments on the NPRM. Ameri-King requested that, if we go forward with the final rule, we amend the facts regarding the basis for the NPRM. Ameri-King stated it objects to the FAA's stated basis for the NPRM for the following reasons:
• Ameri-King stated that the alleged 73 reported ELT failures were never communicated to Ameri-King and Ameri-King has never been afforded the opportunity to investigate the cause(s) of such alleged failures. The commenter questioned whether they were due to design or production defects, or improper installation, maintenance, and use.
• Ameri-King stated that the number of allegedly reported failures does not comport with the FAA's service difficulty report (SDR) database, which shows only 64 reports related to service difficulties with Ameri-King ELTs. Ameri-King stated that many of these 64 reports clearly indicate failures due to factors other than design or manufacturing, and outside of Ameri-King's activities, such as improper installation, improper and inadequate maintenance, and dead batteries.
• Ameri-King noted that whether there were 64 or 73 reports, these numbers are relatively inconsequential considering that there are over 14,500 Ameri-King ELTs in the field. Ameri-King added that utilizing the FAA's number of 73 failures would evidence a failure rate of approximately one-half of one percent (0.5%). Ameri-King stated that the number of reports confined to Ameri-King's ELTs pales in comparison to the FAA's SDR database for all ELT manufacturers (799 SDRs), further bolstering Ameri-King's quality control and performance accomplishments.
• Ameri-King also pointed out that the NPRM states that for service information, affected persons should contact Ameri-King directly. However, by the terms of the cease and desist order, dated December 28, 2015, the FAA has prevented Ameri-King from providing any assistance. Ameri-King noted that, to the extent functional tests reveal that the failures are due to dead batteries, the aircraft owner may not be able to purchase replacements. Although these batteries are “off the shelf” generic batteries that are not of Ameri-King's design or manufacture, under the terms of the cease and desist order, Ameri-King cannot sell other manufacturers' replacement batteries.
• Ameri-King stated that FAA certification guidelines classify ELTs as non-essential equipment, and that under TSO-C126a and TSO-C126b, ELT failures have been considered by the FAA to be “minor failures.”
In response to the commenter's request to amend the facts regarding the basis for the NPRM, we note that the 73 ELT failures are from reports that Ameri-King Quality Control (QC) provided to the FAA. Regarding the failure rate, SDR source data comes from operator reports and varies in completion and information detail provided. In addition, the SDR database is not a comprehensive database. It is only one of the tools used to investigate potential safety issues (
As stated previously, Ameri-King's failure rate is significantly higher than at least one other manufacturer. The Ameri-King failures include occurrences of inadvertent G-switch activation and premature battery replacement due to repeated inadvertent ELT self-test initialization.
We found Ameri-King's quality control records to be insufficient as they only included data covering one year. In addition, we discovered that Ameri-King would receive failed ELTs from operators, repair them, and reissue them with a new serial number, which affects quality and configuration control. Since there were noncompliance findings with quality standards and manufacturer processes, it is unknown how many future failures there may be due to manufacturing factors at Ameri-King.
We acknowledge that the NPRM should not have referred to Ameri-King for contact information for the service information. We have revised the
We have also revised paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that operators are not required to get replacement batteries from Ameri-King Corporation. Ameri-King AK-450-( ) series ELTs use alkaline batteries. Ameri-King AK-451-( ) series ELTs use lithium batteries. Regarding lithium battery replacement, operators should note that replacement batteries should follow the battery standards requirements specified in TSO-C142a, Non-Rechargeable Lithium Cells and Batteries. TSO-C142a states that non-rechargeable lithium cells and batteries must meet minimum performance standards in RTCA, Inc., document RTCA DO-227, “Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Lithium Batteries,” dated June 23, 1995 (“DO-227”). As specified in DO-227, if any lithium battery replacement is necessary, all batteries should be replaced,
Regarding Ameri-King's comment about non-essential equipment and minor failures, we acknowledge that ELTs are considered non-essential equipment for certain aircraft. However, the majority of Ameri-King ELTs (approximately 10,500 units) were sold to operators of small airplanes, certificated under 14 CFR part 23. In assessing this issue, we followed Section 4-12, “Other Structure—
Also, airplane components intended to provide occupant protection must function as intended in a survivable incident or accident. Using a probabilistic approach in these types of situations is not appropriate for making decisions on whether airworthiness action is necessary. However, probabilistic methods can help us determine how quickly we should take an airworthiness action and how effective a proposed airworthiness action may be in reducing the risk associated with an airworthiness concern.
Thus, we find that Ameri-King ELT failures must be addressed because nonfunctioning ELTs could delay or impede the rescue of the flightcrew and passengers after an emergency landing.
Three commenters requested that we remove repair requirements from the proposed AD. One of these commenters, Neal Dillman, noted that the existing manual does not specify that repairs be accomplished. The commenter indicated that doing a repair in order to maintain airworthiness is supported by existing advisory circulars, as well as other FAA documentation. The commenter also noted that other ELT manufacturers have documentation that does not include repairs and, therefore, requiring a repair for Ameri-King is superfluous.
Another commenter, Richard Koehler, questioned why the proposed AD specifies to repair discrepancies when 14 CFR 91.207(d) calls for an inspection of the ELT, but leaves the repair to the mechanic with an inspection authorization. The commenter questioned why we have to add overt words to repair discrepancies in the proposed AD, but not in the regulations. We infer the commenter is requesting that we not include repair requirements.
Another commenter, Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for Ameri-King, stated that to the extent that the proposed AD requires accomplishing the actions already specified in Ameri-King's Installation & Operations Manuals, “Documents IM-450 and IM-451,” which include yearly inspections and performance of functional and operations tests, no objection is offered. However, Ameri-King stated that the requirements of the proposed AD differ from Ameri-King's Installation & Operations Manuals where it specifies corrective actions that would be required in repairing or replacing inoperative ELTs.
Ameri-King noted that corrective action is already required under the applicable Federal Aviation Regulations and established industry practices. Ameri-King considered that it should be intuitive and axiomatic that any personnel performing inspections and functional or operations tests would take appropriate corrective actions to ensure that any faults are corrected so the equipment meets and performs in accordance with specifications. As such, Ameri-King concluded that there is little, if any, need to mandate corrective action by AD.
Ameri-King also noted that Ameri-King's Installation & Operations Manuals were approved by the FAA in conjunction with the FAA having issued TSOAs and PMAs to Ameri-King, and at that time, the FAA saw no need to specify corrective actions in the event that inspection or testing revealed any problems—most likely because corrective action is already required by the Federal Aviation Regulations and standard industry practices.
We disagree with the commenter's request to remove the requirement to repair discrepancies. When we issue an AD, we must include actions that are necessary to address the unsafe condition. We acknowledge that the existing regulations provide acceptable requirements to ensure proper maintenance inspection and operation. However, we also typically include actions in ADs to ensure that operators do not overlook (unintentionally or otherwise) the necessity of accomplishing on-condition repairs or replacements related to actions that are necessary to address unsafe conditions. We have not found a similar unsafe condition on ELTs from other manufacturers. For the ELTs identified in this AD, repairs or replacements must be done if discrepancies are found, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
However, we have revised paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD to clarify that either a repair or replacement may be done if any of the conditions identified in those paragraphs is found. Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD had only specified that a replacement must be done. An ELT may be repaired using approved maintenance practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules under subchapters F and G of 14 CFR chapter I. Repairs must be done at an authorized repair station. For clarity, we added a reference to 14 CFR 135.168 to specify the applicable regulation for rotorcraft that affects ELTs.
We have also revised paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to clarify that all discrepancies must be repaired using approved maintenance practices and to add a reference to 14 CFR 135.168. In addition, we revised paragraph (g) of this AD to include a reference to 14 CFR 135.168.
Michael L. Dworkin, legal representative for Ameri-King, requested that we revise the requirements of the proposed AD to include requiring the use of Ameri-King compatible equipment, as currently specified in Ameri-King's Installation & Operations Manuals, for the functional and operations tests. Ameri-King stated that non-compatible equipment will damage the ELT and may produce erroneous test results.
We agree with the commenter that operators should use Ameri-King compatible equipment as identified in Ameri-King's Installation & Operations Manuals. However, this AD requires operators to do actions in accordance with section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance,” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-450, “INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision A, dated October 18, 1995; or section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014. The steps in those sections either do not specify test equipment that must be used or specify a type of equipment “or equivalent” that must be used. Therefore, we have determined it is not necessary to revise this AD in this regard.
Michael Dunn requested that we allow operators to determine if the ELT is functional. The commenter noted his AK-451 ELT was inadvertently set off and it worked.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The service information specified in this AD provides instructions for testing the ELT, and we have determined this test is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.
Richard Koehler stated the number of work-hours specified in the NPRM for the inspection is high. The commenter stated the inspection should be done in about 20 minutes, particularly when done in concert with an annual inspection. We infer the commenter is requesting that we revise the 2 work-hours specified in the “Costs of Compliance” paragraph in the preamble of the NPRM.
We disagree with the request to revise the work hours. The specified number of work hours is only an estimate. The estimate does not assume operators will do the required inspection concurrently with other actions that are not mandated by this AD. Operators may accomplish required actions concurrently with other actions, provided the AD actions are done within the specified compliance time. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
Paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD is an exception to the service information and provides specific instructions to replace non-functioning batteries. We have determined that this AD does not need to specify those instructions as an exception to paragraph (g) of this AD. Replacing affected batteries as required by paragraph (g) of this AD addresses the identified unsafe condition for ELTs with non-functioning batteries. Therefore we have not included paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD in the regulatory text of this AD.
Leon Rinke stated that paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the proposed AD specifies to use four “D” cell batteries, but the AK-450 ELT uses six “D” cell batteries, as specified in the maintenance manual. We infer the commenter is requesting that we revise paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the proposed AD to correct the number of replacement batteries.
We agree with the commenter's statement for the reasons provided. However, we have not revised this AD because paragraph (h)(4)(i) of the proposed AD is not included in the regulatory text of this AD.
We have confirmed with Ameri-King that Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited rotorcraft did not receive Ameri-King ELTs. Therefore, we have removed Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited rotorcraft from table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, which lists known aircraft that might have the affected ELTs installed. However, if an affected ELT is installed on any Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited rotorcraft, this AD applies to that rotorcraft.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance,” Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-450, “INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision A, dated October 18, 1995; and section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the ELT for discrepancies; checks, tests, and verifications to ensure the ELT is functioning; and corrective actions. Corrective actions include replacing affected parts. These documents are distinct because they apply to different Ameri-King Corporation ELT models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 14,500 ELTs installed on various aircraft 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 inspections, checks, tests, and verifications. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD 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 24, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Ameri-King Corporation Model AK-450-( ) and AK-451-( ) series emergency locator transmitters (ELTs). This appliance is installed on, but not limited to, aircraft identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2562, Emergency Locator Beacon.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of ELT failure. This AD was also prompted by a report of noncompliance to quality standards and manufacturer processes related to Ameri-King Corporation ELTs. Failure to adhere to these standards and processes could result in ELTs that do not function. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct nonfunctioning ELTs, which, if not corrected, could delay or impede the rescue of the flightcrew and passengers after an emergency landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do general visual inspections of the ELT for discrepancies; checks, tests, and verifications, as applicable, to ensure the ELT is functioning; and all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance,” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-450, “INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision A, dated October 18, 1995; or section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014; as applicable; and as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules under subchapters F and G of 14 CFR chapter I (hereafter referred to as “other applicable operating rules”) after accomplishing the inspections, checks, tests, and verifications. Repeat the inspections and
(1) If, during any action required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any ELT fails the functional test specified in step 6., the verification specified in step 7., or the activation check specified in step 8., of section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance,” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-450, “INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision A, dated October 18, 1995, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Replace the affected Model AK-450-( ) ELT with a serviceable FAA-approved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD (“Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT”), following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules.
(ii) Repair the ELT using approved maintenance practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules.
(2) If, during any action required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any ELT fails any of the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(v) of this AD: Replace the affected Model AK-451-( ) ELT with a serviceable FAA-approved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD (“Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT”), following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules; or repair the ELT using approved maintenance practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules.
(i) The operational test specified in step 3.4.6 of section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(ii) Any check specified in step 3.4.7 of section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(iii) The digital message verification specified in step 3.4.8 of section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(iv) The registration verification specified in step 3.4.9 of section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(v) The verification of the ELT and global positioning system (GPS) interface specified in step 3.4.10 of section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(3) If, during any action required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any of the discrepancies specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(vi) of this AD are found, repair all discrepancies using approved maintenance practices and following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other applicable operating rules.
(i) Any unsecured fastener or mechanical assembly.
(ii) Any cuts or abrasions on the coaxial cable outer jacket.
(iii) Any corrosion on the “BNC” connectors and mating plug on the antenna and the ELT main unit.
(iv) Any wear or abrasion on the modular cable outer jacket.
(v) Any corrosion on the jack and plug of the modular connecting cable.
(vi) Any corrosion on the battery compartment.
For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable FAA-approved ELT is any FAA-approved ELT other than a Model AK-450-( ) and AK-451-( ) series ELT produced by Ameri-King Corporation.
Doing the applicable action specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(1) For aircraft required by operating regulations to be equipped with an ELT: Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAA-approved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD (“Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT”).
(2) For aircraft not required by operating regulations to be equipped with an ELT: Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAA-approved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD (“Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT”). The ELT may be removed as an alternative to the ELT replacement; if an ELT is re-installed, it must be a serviceable ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD (“Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved ELT”).
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(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.
For more information about this AD, contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372; 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) Section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance,” Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-450, “INSTALLATION & OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision A, dated October 18, 1995.
(ii) Section 3.4, “Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),” Ameri-King Corporation Document IM-451, “INSTALLATION AND OPERATION MANUAL,” Revision NC-4.1h, dated July 5, 2014.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5372; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 Trade Commission.
Final rule; adoption of revised guides.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) issues final amendments to the Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles (“Fuel Economy Guide” or “Guide”) to address advertising claims prevalent in the market and harmonize with current Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) fuel economy labeling rules.
Effective October 19, 2017.
Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room C-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
In 1975, the Commission issued the Fuel Economy Guide (16 CFR part 259) (40 FR 42003 (Sep. 10, 1975)) to prevent deceptive fuel economy advertising for new automobiles and facilitate the use of fuel efficiency information in advertising. To accomplish these goals, the Guide advises advertisers to disclose established EPA fuel economy estimates (
The Guide helps advertisers avoid deceptive or unfair fuel economy claims.
On June 6, 2016, the Commission sought comment on proposed amendments to the Guide (81 FR 36216) (“2016 Notice”). Consistent with the Commission's other guides, these proposed changes updated the Guide's format with a list of general principles to help advertisers avoid deceptive practices and detailed examples to illustrate those principles. Additionally, the proposed amendments provided guidance on claims involving EPA-based MPG ratings, non-EPA tests, vehicle configuration, fuel economy range, and alternative fueled vehicles. The Commission conducted Internet-based research exploring consumer perceptions of certain fuel economy marketing claims.
As discussed below, the comments addressed several issues, including the Guide's overall benefits, single mileage claims, alternative fueled vehicle claims, non-EPA estimates in advertising, and the Guide's format and wording.
The commenters generally supported the proposed Guide revisions. For example, the Alliance noted that the amendments “represent a constructive revision.” Commenter Hilandera added that the changes “add transparency to advertising by local dealers and national media” and help consumers “evaluate whether or not to purchase a particular car model.” Commenters also commended the FTC consumer research. The Global Automakers stated that the study results “allow for better, data-based evaluation of advertising statements, rather than speculating on how consumers might interpret those statements.”
The 2016 Notice further explained that the FTC consumer study supports the conclusion that consumers would not be deceived. For example, when shown a single highway mileage claim (
As the Commission explained, this research suggests that single mileage claims do not deceive consumers as long as the claim specifies the mode of driving involved (
According to CFA, advertisers' failure to disclose city or combined ratings along with the highway rating constitutes a material omission likely to mislead consumers. In CFA's view, because no consistent relationship exists between city and highway estimates, consumers cannot infer one of the ratings based solely on the other or predict their own experience based on a single rating. Accordingly, CFA argued that automobile advertisers should present both the highway and city numbers, the combined, or all three in their fuel economy advertising. As detailed below, in support of this position, CFA discussed the FTC's research, submitted its own research, and highlighted additional arguments supporting its contention that highway-only MPG claims are misleading.
First, CFA addressed and critiqued the FTC research and associated analysis, claiming that the Commission failed to highlight a key result and that the study's question ordering led to biased responses. Specifically, CFA argued the results of Question 6c reveal that a single mileage claim is likely to deceive a significant minority of consumers. The question presented respondents with a claim stating that “This car is rated at 25 miles per gallon on the highway according to the EPA estimate” (Q6c) and then asked them whether they would expect to achieve that rating if they used the advertised vehicle for all their driving. According to the results, 20.7% of the respondents said they would probably get 25 MPG overall for all their driving. CFA contended this result demonstrates that, even if accompanied by a clear and prominent disclaimer that applies only to highway driving, a single mileage number misleads a significant minority of consumers into overestimating the MPG they will achieve.
Additionally, CFA claimed the questions most relevant to the single mileage claim appeared after “respondents had already experienced a number of questions emphasizing the distinction between highway and city driving and estimates.”
CFA also highlighted its own research. Its national telephone survey presented three questions. First, it showed respondents an advertisement stating “31 miles per gallon EPA highway estimate” and then asked whether they would be more or less likely to consider buying the vehicle if that advertisement also stated “19 miles per gallon EPA city estimate.” Overall, 43% of respondents said the city number would affect their behavior (26% said it would make them less likely to buy the car, while 17% said it would make them more likely). CFA asserted that, because over two-fifths of the respondents said the city rating disclosure would change their behavior, advertising should present both numbers.
Second, the CFA survey asked respondents whether “it is misleading to allow advertisers to present only a vehicle's miles per gallon estimate for highway driving.” Before presenting this question, the survey informed participants that “[v]ehicles nearly always get more miles per gallon, or higher mileage per gallon, on highway driving than on city driving.” Sixty four percent of respondents indicated that presenting only the highway number in advertising is misleading. Third, the CFA survey asked respondents which type of claim (
Finally, CFA made several additional points. First, it explained that consumers are less likely to drive on the highway than in the city. It noted that, in approximating typical consumer driving patterns, the EPA combined number assumes 45% highway driving and 55% city driving. Second, it presented data demonstrating that little correlation exists for the majority of vehicles between a vehicle's highway MPG and its corresponding city or combined MPG. Given this variability, CFA concluded that consumers cannot accurately infer a model's city or combined MPG from a single highway rating, and those who attempt to make such an inference would be misled by a single mileage number.
First, the Commission disagrees with CFA's assertion that the question Q6 responses demonstrate a single mileage claim deceives a significant minority of consumers. Question Q6c specifically asked respondents to read the statement “This car is rated at 25 miles per gallon on the highway according to the EPA estimate,” and to choose a closed-ended answer that “best describes what you would expect to get if you used this car for
However, the responses to Q6 do not provide a reliable measure of whether a highway-driving claim leads respondents to take away a false or misleading claim about ratings for other driving modes. First, because the survey asked respondents to consider their own driving habits, some portion of this 20% may be consumers who drive a lot on the highway. Those consumers' answers do not demonstrate that the disclosure was deceptive. Second, because there is no control for these particular results, some portion of the answers likely represents random guessing, confusion about the question, or other factors absent in a real-world advertising context.
Second, contrary to the commenters' suggestions, the question sequence in the FTC study is unlikely to have significantly impacted the research results. According to CFA, questions involving different driving modes appeared early in the survey. In its view, these questions “sensitized” (or “educated”) participants and caused them to answer later questions about driving modes differently than they would have if they had not been exposed to these prior questions. CFA pointed to three examples of questions appearing early in the study (Q3b, Q3c-e, and Q5a) that, in its view, tainted later results. However, the questions themselves did not mention different driving modes. Additionally, two of these three examples (Q3b and Q5a) were open-ended questions, where participants typed their answers into a blank text box.
Additionally, the other example offered by the commenters, Q3c-3e (each respondent answered only one of these), is unlikely to have biased respondents. These questions displayed several closed-ended answers, one of which read, “This model gets up to 30 miles per gallon depending on whether it's highway or city driving.” The questions did not specify whether one mode of driving yields different mileage than the other.
Third, several aspects of the CFA study reduce its utility in addressing the question at hand. For instance, CFA's first study question, QE1, asked whether adding a city rating to a highway rating claim would change the likelihood participants would purchase a particular car. As constructed, the question merely provides evidence that the city mileage rating may be useful to the consumer's decision. It does not demonstrate that the highway rating, standing alone, is deceptive. In addition, the two other principal questions in the study (questions QE2 and QE3) sought the respondents' personal opinions about whether certain claims would be misleading or desirable. Such opinion questions do not furnish reliable evidence about deception because they rely on respondents' opinions about the claim's effects, as well as their own understanding of what deception means. QE3 is additionally problematic because it asks respondents only to identify disclosures that “auto advertisers should be required to include if making a fuel economy claim,” even though consumers could have various reasons other than the prevention of deception for wanting advertisers to disclose this information. Finally, the study's lack of control questions reduces its usefulness, particularly given that CFA's questions seek respondents' personal opinions, as discussed above.
Fourth, CFA argued that a highway mileage-only claim constitutes a misleading omission because consumers are not aware that city ratings can be substantially lower than highway numbers and, instead, believe a city rating can be derived from the vehicle's highway number. As CFA explained, no consistent relationship exists between city and highway ratings among models on the market.
Second, the Global Automakers and the Alliance asked for clarification that the proposed flex-fuel guidance does not apply to plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), which are rated for both charge-depleting (expressed in MPGe) and charge-sustaining operation. These commenters noted that the Commission did not propose advising advertisers to disclose MPGe in advertising for electric vehicles because it is unclear whether such disclosures are essential to preventing deception and whether consumers understand and use such disclosures.
In its 2016 Notice, the Commission did not propose changing this approach. The Commission identified no evidence that fuel economy claims are deceptive if accompanied by the clear and prominent disclosures described above. Therefore, consistent with the previous Guide, the proposed Guide recommended specific disclosures related to non-EPA claims to reduce the possibility of deception.
Second, Global Automakers noted that, in some cases, a manufacturer may wish to include actual on-road test results from reputable organizations to provide additional information regarding the vehicle's fuel economy. In explaining the road test procedures and conditions, according to Global Automakers, it should be sufficient to simply state that the data is generated through on-road tests and specify the organization that conducted the tests, without providing extensive details regarding the test procedures and conditions.
Advertising, Fuel economy, Trade practices.
15 U.S.C. 41-58.
The Guide in this part contains administrative interpretations of laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. Specifically, the Guide addresses the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of fuel economy information in advertising for new automobiles. This guidance provides the basis for voluntary compliance with the law by advertisers and endorsers. Practices inconsistent with this Guide may result in corrective action by the Commission under Section 5 if, after investigation, the Commission has reason to believe that the practices fall within the scope of conduct declared unlawful by the statute. The Guide sets forth the general principles that the Commission will use in such an investigation together with examples illustrating the application of those principles. The Guide does not purport to cover every possible use of fuel economy in advertising. Whether a particular advertisement is deceptive will depend on the specific advertisement at issue.
For the purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(2) Electricity for electrically-powered automobiles;
(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles;
(4) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles; or
(5) Any other fuel type used in a vehicle for which EPA requires a fuel economy label under 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
To prevent deceptive claims, qualifications and disclosures should be clear, prominent, and understandable. To make disclosures clear and prominent, marketers should use plain language and sufficiently large type for a person to see and understand them, should place disclosures in close proximity to the qualified claim, and should avoid making inconsistent statements or using distracting elements that could undercut or contradict the disclosure. The disclosures should also appear in the same format as the claim. For example, for television advertisements, if the fuel economy claim appears in the video, the disclosure recommended by this Guide should appear in the visual format; if the fuel economy claim is audio, the disclosure should be in audio.
(a)
(b)
A new car advertisement states: “This vehicle gets great mileage.” The claim is likely to convey a variety of meanings, including that the vehicle has a better MPG rating than all or almost all other cars on the market. However, the advertised vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimates are only slightly better than the average vehicle on the market. Because the advertiser cannot substantiate that the vehicle's rating is better than all or almost all other cars on the market, the advertisement is deceptive. In addition, the advertiser may not be able to substantiate other reasonable interpretations of the claim. To avoid deception, the advertisement should disclose the vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimate (
An advertisement states: “This car gets great gas mileage compared to other compact cars.” The claim is likely to convey a variety of meanings, including that the vehicle gets better gas mileage than all or almost all other compact cars. However, the vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimates are only slightly better than average compared to other models in its class. Because the advertiser cannot substantiate that the vehicle's rating is better than all or almost all other compact cars, the advertisement is deceptive. In addition, the advertiser may not be able to substantiate other reasonable interpretations of the claim. To address this problem, the advertisement should disclose the vehicle's EPA fuel economy estimate.
(c)
An automobile advertisement states that model “XYZ gets great gas mileage in town.” However, the advertisement does not disclose the EPA city fuel economy estimate. Instead, it only discloses the EPA highway fuel economy estimate, which is higher than the model's city estimate. This claim likely conveys to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers that the highway estimate disclosed in the advertisement applies to city driving. Thus, the advertisement is deceptive to consumers. To remedy this problem, the advertisement should disclose the EPA city fuel economy estimate (
A new car advertisement states that model “XZA gives you great gas mileage” but only provides the EPA highway fuel economy estimate. Given the likely inconsistency between the general fuel economy claim, which does not reference a specific type of driving, and the disclosed EPA highway estimate, the advertisement is deceptive to consumers. To address this problem, the advertisement should disclose the EPA combined estimate (
An advertisement states: “according to EPA estimates, new cars in this class are rated at between 20 and 32 MPG, while the EPA estimate for this car is an impressive 35 MPG highway.” The advertisement is likely to imply that the 20 to 32 MPG range and 35 MPG estimate are comparable. In fact, the “20 and 32 MPG” range reflects EPA city estimates. Therefore, the advertisement is deceptive. To address this problem, the advertisement should only provide an apples-to-apples comparison—either using the highway range for the class or using the city estimate for the advertised vehicle.
(d)
An automobile manufacture's Web site states, without qualification, “This car gets 40 MPG on the highway.” The claim likely conveys to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers that they will achieve 40 MPG driving this vehicle on the highway. The advertiser based its claim on an EPA highway estimate. However, EPA provides that estimate primarily for comparison purposes—it does not necessarily reflect real world driving results. Therefore, the claim is deceptive. In addition, the use of the term “gets,” without qualification, may lead some consumers to believe not only that they can, but will consistently, achieve the stated mileage. To address these problems, the advertisement should clarify that the MPG value is an estimate by stating “EPA estimate” or equivalent language.
(e)
A radio commercial for the “XTQ” car states that the vehicle “is rated at an estimated 28 MPG in the city” but does not disclose that an EPA test is the source of this MPG estimate. This advertisement may convey that the source of this test is an entity other than EPA. To avoid deception, the advertisement should state that the MPG figures are EPA estimates.
(f)
A television commercial for the car model “ZTA” informs consumers that the ZTA is rated at “25 miles per gallon according to the EPA estimate” but does not disclose whether this number is a highway, city, or combined estimate. The advertisement likely conveys to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers that the 25 MPG figure reflects normal driving (
(g)
An advertisement claims that sports car X “outpaces other cars' gas mileage.” The claim likely conveys a variety of meanings to a significant proportion of reasonable consumers, including that this vehicle has a higher MPG rating than all or almost all other vehicles on the market. Although the vehicle's MPG rating compares favorably to other sports cars, its fuel economy is only better than roughly half of all new automobiles on the market. Therefore, the claim is deceptive.
(h)
A manufacturer's advertisement states that model “PDQ” gets “great gas mileage” but depicts the MPG numbers for a similar model type known as the “Econo-PDQ.” The advertisement is likely to convey that the claimed MPG rating applies to all types of the PDQ model. However, the “Econo-PDQ” has a better fuel economy rating than other types of the “PDQ” model. Therefore, the advertisement is deceptive.
(i) “
An advertisement states, without further explanation, that a vehicle model VXR will achieve “up to 40 MPG on the highway.” The advertisement is based on a particularly efficient type of this model, with specific options, with an EPA highway estimate of 40 MPG. However, other types of model VXR have lower EPA MPG estimates. A significant proportion of reasonable consumers likely interpret the “up to” claim as applying to all VXR model types. Therefore, the advertisement is deceptive. To address this problem, the advertisement should clearly and prominently disclose that the 40 MPG rating does not apply to all model types of the VXR or use language other than “up to” that better conveys the claim.
(j)
An automobile advertisement states: “This flex-fuel powerhouse has a 30 MPG highway rating according to the EPA estimate.” The advertisement likely implies that the 30 MPG rating applies to both gasoline and alternative fuel operation. In fact, the ethanol EPA estimate for this vehicle is 25 MPG. Therefore, the advertisement is deceptive. To address this problem, the advertisement could clearly and prominently qualify the claim or disclose the MPG ratings for both gasoline and alternative fuel operation.
(k)
An advertisement for an electric vehicle states: “This car has a great driving range.” This claim likely conveys a variety of meanings, including that the vehicle has a better driving range than all or almost all other electric vehicles. However, the EPA driving range estimate for this vehicle is only slightly better than roughly half of all other electric vehicles on the market. Because the advertiser cannot substantiate that the vehicle's driving range is better than all or almost all other electric vehicles, the advertisement is deceptive. In addition, the advertiser may not be able to substantiate other reasonable interpretations of the claim. To address this problem, the advertisement should disclose the vehicle's EPA driving range estimate (
(l)
(i) That the fuel economy or driving range information is based on a non-EPA test;
(ii) The source of the non-EPA test;
(iii) The EPA fuel economy estimates or EPA driving range estimates for the vehicle; and
(iv) All driving conditions or vehicle configurations simulated by the non-EPA test that are different from those used in the EPA test. Such conditions and variables may include, but are not limited to, road or dynamometer test, average speed, range of speed, hot or cold start, temperature, and design or equipment differences.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
An Internet advertisement states: “Independent driving experts took the QXT car for a weekend spin and managed to get 55 miles-per-gallon under a variety of driving conditions.” It does not disclose the actual EPA fuel economy estimates, nor does it explain how conditions during the “weekend spin” differed from those under the EPA tests. This advertisement likely conveys that the 55 MPG figure is the same or comparable to an EPA fuel economy estimate for the vehicle. This claim is deceptive because it fails to disclose that fuel economy information is based on a non-EPA test, the source of the non-EPA test, the EPA fuel economy estimates for the vehicle, and all driving conditions or vehicle configurations simulated by the non-EPA test that are different from those used in the EPA test.
An advertisement states: “The XZY electric car has a driving range of 110 miles per charge in summer conditions according to our expert's test.” It provides no additional information regarding this driving range claim. This advertisement likely conveys that this 110-mile driving range figure is comparable to an EPA driving range estimate for the vehicle. The advertisement is deceptive because it does not clearly state that the test is a non-EPA test; it does not provide the EPA estimated driving range; and it does not explain how conditions referred to in the advertisement differed from those under the EPA tests. Without this information, consumers are likely to confuse the claims with range estimates derived from the official EPA test procedures.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rules.
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”) amends the Rules and Regulations Under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (“Wool Rules”), the Rules and Regulations Under Fur Products Labeling Act (“Fur Rules”), and the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (“Textile Rules”) (collectively, “Rules”) to require the public to submit any requests to obtain, update, or cancel registered identification numbers via the FTC's Web site.
The amended Rules are effective October 19, 2017.
Joshua S. Millard, (202) 326-2454, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission is revising the Fur, Textile, and Wool Rules to require electronic filing of requests to obtain, update, or cancel registered identification numbers used on fur, textile, and wool product labels through the FTC's Web site, unless the Commission or its designee instructs otherwise as specified below. The revisions facilitate the use of the Commission's web-based registered identification number (“RN”) system, which will streamline the application and update process for participating businesses, and greatly increase the efficiency with which the FTC delivers RN services to the public. This document describes the background of the RN program and the grounds for revising the relevant parts of the Fur, Textile, and Wool Rules, and sets forth the amended Rules provisions.
Federal labeling requirements mandate that most fur, textile, and wool products have a label identifying the manufacturer or other business responsible for marketing or handling the item.
For over 50 years, to obtain or update an RN, one had to complete and submit a paper form published in the
Recently, the FTC upgraded its RN Web page at
The FTC's upgraded Web site allows the public to create a password-protected user account to obtain or update an RN without requiring more company information than before. To process a new RN application, the Web site asks the applicant in pertinent part to identify its legal name, the name under which it does business, the business' street address, the type of business it conducts (
The amended Rules provide that requests made by means other than the FTC's Web site will not be accepted unless otherwise indicated by the Commission or its designee. This provision affords the Commission or its designee the discretion to act on requests submitted by other means when appropriate (
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and comment requirements do not apply “to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The final Rules do not change the substantive responsibilities of any entity under the Rules. The revisions merely modify the procedural mechanism for submitting requests relating to RNs. Accordingly, the Commission finds that advance public notice and comment is unnecessary. For this reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) also do not apply.
The amendments to the Rules do not constitute a new “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (“PRA”). The Rules contain various existing information collection requirements for which the Commission has obtained clearance under the PRA from the Office of Management and Budget. Because these amendments do not trigger additional recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting requirements, there is no incremental burden under the PRA.
Labeling, Trade practices, Wool.
Fur, Labeling, Trade practices.
Labeling, Textiles, Trade practices.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends Title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 300, 301, and 303 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 68-68j.
(c) Registered identification numbers shall be used only by the person or firm to whom they are issued, and such numbers are not transferable or assignable. Registered identification numbers shall be subject to cancellation whenever any such number was procured or has been used improperly or contrary to the requirements of the Acts administered by the Federal Trade Commission, and regulations in this part, or when otherwise deemed necessary in the public interest. Registered identification numbers shall be subject to cancellation if the Commission fails to receive prompt notification of any change in name, business address, or legal business status of a person or firm to whom a registered identification number has been assigned, by application duly executed in the form and manner set out in paragraph (e) of this section, reflecting the current name, business address, and legal business status of the person or firm.
(e) Requests for a registered identification number, to update information pertaining to an existing number, or to cancel an existing number shall be made through the Commission's Web site at
15 U.S.C. 69
(a) Registered numbers for use as the required identification in lieu of the name on fur product labels as provided in section 4(2)(E) of the Act will be issued by the Commission to qualified persons residing in the United States upon receipt of an application duly executed on the Commission's Web site at
(b) * * *
(2) Registered identification numbers shall be subject to cancellation if the Federal Trade Commission fails to receive prompt notification of any change in name, business address, or legal business status of a person or firm to whom a registered identification number has been assigned, by application duly executed in the form and manner set out in paragraph (d) of this section, reflecting the current name, business address, and legal business status of the person or firm.
(d) Requests for a registered identification number, to update information pertaining to an existing number, or to cancel an existing number shall be made through the Commission's Web site at
15 U.S.C. 70
(a) Registered numbers for use as the required identification in lieu of the name on textile fiber product labels, as provided in section 4(b)(3) of the Act, will be issued by the Commission to qualified persons residing in the United States upon receipt of an application duly executed on the Commission's Web site at
(b)(1) Registered identification numbers shall be used only by the person or concern to whom they are issued, and such numbers are not transferable or assignable.
(2) Registered identification numbers shall be subject to cancellation whenever any such number was procured or has been used improperly or contrary to the requirements of the Acts administered by the Federal Trade Commission, and regulations promulgated thereunder, or when otherwise deemed necessary in the public interest.
(3) Registered identification numbers shall be subject to cancellation if the Commission fails to receive prompt notification of any change in name, business address, or legal business status of a person or firm to whom a registered identification number has been assigned, by application duly executed on the Commission's Web site at
(c) Registered identification numbers assigned under this section may be used on labels required in labeling products subject to the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act and Fur Products Labeling Act, and numbers previously assigned by the Commission under such Acts may be used as and for the required name in labeling under this Act. When so used by the person or firm to whom assigned, the use of the numbers shall be construed as identifying and binding the applicant as fully and in all respects as though assigned under the specific Act for which it is used.
(d) Requests for a registered identification number, to update information pertaining to an existing number, or to cancel an existing number shall be made through the Commission's Web site at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect an extension of import restrictions on certain archaeological materials from Mali. These restrictions, which were originally imposed by Treasury Decision (T.D.) 93-74, and last extended by CBP Decision (Dec.) 12-14, are due to expire on September 19, 2017. The Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, United States Department of State, has determined that conditions warrant the continued imposition of import restrictions on certain archaeological materials and the addition of import restrictions on certain ethnological materials from Mali. The Designated List of cultural property described in CBP Dec. 07-77 is revised in this document to reflect the addition of ethnological materials to include manuscripts dating between the twelfth and twentieth centuries in paper. The import restrictions imposed on the archaeological and ethnological materials from Mali will be in effect for a five-year period, and the CBP regulations are being amended accordingly to reflect this extension through September 19, 2022. These restrictions are being imposed pursuant to determinations of the United States Department of State made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
Effective September 19, 2017.
For regulatory aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0215,
Pursuant to the provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (hereafter, “the Cultural Property Implementation Act” or “the Act” (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
In certain limited circumstances, the Cultural Property Implementation Act authorizes the imposition of restrictions on an emergency basis (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(1)). Under the Act and the applicable CBP regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(b)), emergency restrictions are effective for no more than five years from the date of the State Party's request and may be extended for three years
On September 23, 1993, under the authority of the Cultural Property Implementation Act, the former U.S. Customs Service published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 93-74 in the
On September 19, 1997, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with Mali that continued without interruption the import restrictions previously placed on the same archaeological material. On September 23, 1997, the former U.S. Customs Service published T.D. 97-80 in the
Under the Act and applicable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations (19 CFR 12.104g), the restrictions are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (19 U.S.C. 2602(b)). This period may be extended for additional periods, each such period not to exceed five years, where it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); 19 CFR 12.104g(a)). On September 20, 2002, the former U.S. Customs Service published T.D. 02-55 in the
On September 19, 2007, CBP published CBP Decision (Dec.) 07-77 in the
On September 19, 2012, CBP published CBP Dec. 12-14 in the
On March 14, 2017, by publication in the
On August 7, 2017, the Acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, United States Department of State, determined that the cultural heritage of Mali continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of certain archaeological materials and is also in jeopardy from the pillage of certain ethnological materials. The Acting Under Secretary made the necessary determination to extend the import restrictions for an additional five-year period to September 19, 2022, and to include in their coverage ethnological materials, specifically manuscripts dating between the twelfth and twentieth centuries in paper. An international agreement has been concluded reflecting the extension of the Agreement and, pursuant to the Agreement, the import restrictions are being extended, as described in this document and as applicable to the revised Designated List set forth in this document. Thus, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) accordingly. Importation of covered materials from Mali will be restricted through September 19, 2022. Importation of such materials from Mali continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
In this document, the Designated List of articles that was published in CBP Dec. 07-77 is amended to include ethnological materials comprised of manuscripts dating between the twelfth and twentieth centuries in paper. The articles described in the Designated List set forth below are protected pursuant to the Agreement.
This Designated List, amended as set forth in this document, includes archaeological material that originates in Mali, ranging in date from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to approximately the mid-eighteenth century A.D. These materials include, but are not limited to, objects of ceramic, leather, metal, stone, glass, textiles, and wood. The Designated List also includes a certain category of ethnological material, namely manuscripts dating between the twelfth and twentieth centuries in paper. The Designated List and more information on the import restrictions can be obtained from the Mali country section of the International Cultural Property Protection Web site at
The list set forth below is representative only. Any dimensions are approximate.
Types of ceramic forms (stylistically known as Djenné-Djeno or Jenne, Bankoni, Guimbala, Banamba, Bougouni, Bura and other stylistic labels) that are known to come from the region include, but are not limited to:
Objects of leather found in Tellem funerary caves of the Bandiagara Escarpment include, but are not limited to:
Objects of copper, bronze, iron, and gold from Mali include, but are not limited to:
Objects of stone from Mali include, but are not limited to:
A variety of glass beads have been recovered at archaeological sites in Mali.
Textile objects, or fragments thereof, have been recovered in the Tellem funerary caves of the Bandiagara Escarpment and include, but are not limited to:
Objects of wood may be found archaeologically (in funerary caves of the Tellem or Dogon peoples in the Bandiagara Escarpment, for example). Following are representative examples of wood objects usually found archaeologically:
Manuscripts and portions thereof from the Mali Empire, Songhai Empire, pre-Colonial, and French Colonial periods of Mali (twelfth to early twentieth centuries), including but not limited to Qur'ans and other religious texts, letters, treatises, doctrines, essays or other such papers spanning the subjects of astronomy, law, Islam, philosophy, mathematics, governance, medicine, slavery, commerce, poetry, and literature, either as single leaves or bound as a book (or “codex”), and written in Arabic using the Kufic, Hijazi, Maghribi, Saharan, Sudani, Suqi, Nashk, or Ajami scripts written on paper.
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). In addition, CBP has determined that such notice or public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the action being taken is essential to avoid interruption of the application of the existing import restrictions (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
Approved:
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule.
The National Labor Relations Board amends its procedural rules and regulations to include testimony transmitted by videoconference, and amicus brief filings.
This rule is effective on September 29, 2017.
Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
The changes are summarized below:
The Board added language covering procedures applicable to deposition testimony contemporaneously transmitted by videoconference. The procedures cover the filing of applications to take depositions by videoconference, the safeguards required for the taking of videoconference testimony, the timing, method, and bases for filing objections to the admissibility of videoconference testimony, transcription of videoconference testimony, and the payment of witness and court reporter fees associated with the taking of videoconference testimony.
The Board added language setting forth the procedures covering procedures applicable to amicus curiae briefs. The procedures cover the circumstances when motions for permission to file an amicus brief may be filed, the contents of such motions, replies to motions, page length of amicus briefs, parties' answering briefs to amicus briefs, and the solicitation of amicus briefs by the Board.
Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency has determined that these rule amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These rule amendments will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This action is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. These amendments will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more or a major increase in costs or prices, nor will these amendments have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
The amended regulations contain no additional information-collection or record-keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This rule is published as a final rule. The National Labor Relations Board considers this rule to be a procedural rule which is exempt from notice and public comment, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), as a rule of “agency organization, procedure, or practice.” If you wish to contact the Agency, please do so at the above listed address. However, before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Labor Relations Board amends 29 CFR part 102 as follows:
Sections 1, 6, National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151, 156). Section 102.117 also issued under section 552(a)(4)(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)), and Section 102.117a also issued under section 552a(j) and (k) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k)). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under section 504(c)(1) of the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).
(a) Applications to take depositions, including deposition testimony contemporaneously transmitted by videoconference, must be in writing and set forth the reasons why the depositions may be taken, the name, mailing address and email address (if available) of the witness, the matters concerning which it is expected the witness will testify, and the time and place proposed for taking the deposition, together with the name and mailing and email addresses of the person before whom it is desired that the deposition be taken (for the purposes of this section hereinafter referred to as the “officer”). Such application must be made to the Regional Director prior to the hearing, and to the Administrative Law Judge during and subsequent to the hearing but before transfer of the case to the Board pursuant to § 102.45 or § 102.50. Such application must be served on the Regional Director or the Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be, and on all other parties, not less than 7 days (when the deposition is to be taken within the continental United States) and 15 days (if the deposition is to be taken elsewhere) prior to the time when it is desired that the deposition be taken. The Regional Director or the Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be, will upon receipt of the application, if in the Regional Director's or Administrative Law Judge's discretion, good cause has been shown, make and serve on the parties an order specifying the name of the witness whose deposition is to be taken and the time, place, and designation of the officer before whom the witness is to testify, who may or may not be the same officer as that specified in the application. Such order will be served on all the other parties by the Regional Director or on all parties by the Administrative Law Judge.
(c) At the time and place specified in the order, the officer designated to take the deposition will permit the witness to be examined and cross-examined under oath by all the parties appearing in person or by contemporaneous transmission through videoconference, and testimony shall be transcribed by the officer or under the officer's direction. All objections to questions or evidence will be deemed waived unless made at the examination. The officer will not have power to rule upon any objections but the objections will be noted in the deposition. The testimony must be subscribed by the witness to the satisfaction of the officer who will attach a certificate stating that the witness was duly sworn by the officer, that the deposition is a true record of the testimony and exhibits given by the witness, and that the officer is not of counsel or attorney to any of the parties nor interested in the event of the proceeding or investigation. If the deposition is not signed by the witness because the witness is ill, dead, cannot be found, or refuses to sign it, such fact will be included in the certificate of the officer and the deposition may then be used as fully as though signed. The officer will immediately deliver the transcript, together with the certificate, in person, by registered or certified mail, or by E-File to the Regional Director or Division of Judges' office handling the matter.
(d) The Administrative Law Judge will rule upon the admissibility of the deposition or any part of the deposition. A party may object to the admissibility of deposition testimony by videoconference on grounds that the taking of the deposition did not comply with appropriate safeguards as set forth in § 102.35(c), provided that the party opposing the admission of the deposition raised deficiencies in safeguards at the time of the deposition when corrections might have been made.
(e) All errors or irregularities in compliance with the provisions of this section will be deemed waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition in whole or part is made with reasonable promptness after such defect is or, with due diligence, might have been ascertained.
(g) The official record of the deposition testimony will be the official transcript prepared by the officer designated to transcribe the deposition testimony.
Witnesses summoned before the Administrative Law Judge must be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and witnesses whose depositions are taken or who testify by videoconference and the officer who transcribes the testimony shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States, and those fees shall be paid by the party at whose instance the deposition is taken.
(c) Upon a showing of good cause based on compelling circumstances, and under appropriate safeguards, the taking of video testimony by contemporaneous transmission from a different location may be permitted.
(1) Applications to obtain testimony by videoconference must be presented to the Administrative Law Judge in writing, and the requesting party must simultaneously serve notice of the application upon all parties to the hearing. The application must set forth the compelling circumstances for such testimony, the witness's name and address, the location where the video testimony will be held, the matter concerning which the witness is expected to testify, the conditions in place to protect the integrity of the testimony, the transmission safeguards, and the electronic address from which the video testimony will be transmitted. Such application and any opposition must be made promptly and within such time as not to delay the proceeding.
(2) Appropriate safeguards must ensure that the Administrative Law Judge has the ability to assess the witness's credibility and that the parties have a meaningful opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness, and must include at a minimum measures that ensure that representatives of the parties have the opportunity to be present at the remote location, the judge, participants, and the reporter are able to hear the testimony and observe the witness, the camera view is adjustable to provide a close-up view of counsel and the witness and a panoramic view of the room, exhibits used in the witness's examination are exchanged in advance of the examination, and video technology assistance is available to assist with technical difficulties that arise during the examination. The Administrative Law Judge may also impose additional safeguards.
(3) The official record of the videoconference testimony will be the official transcript prepared by the officer designated to transcribe the testimony.
(i)
(1) The Board will consider motions to file an amicus brief only when: (a) A party files exceptions to an Administrative Law Judge's decision; or (b) a case is remanded by the court of appeals and the Board requests briefing from the parties.
(2) In circumstances where a party files exceptions to an Administrative Law Judge's decision, the motion must be filed with the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Board no later than 42 days after the filing of exceptions, or in the event cross-exceptions are filed, no later than 42 days after the filing of cross-exceptions. Where a case has been remanded by the court of appeals, the motion must be filed no later than 21 days after the parties file statements of position on remand. A motion filed outside these time periods must be supported by a showing of good cause. The motion will not operate to stay the issuance of a Board decision upon completion of the briefing schedule for the parties.
(3) The motion must be accompanied by the proposed amicus brief and must comply with the service and form prescribed by § 102.5. The brief may be no more than 25 pages in length.
(4) A party may file a reply to the motion within 7 days of service of the motion. A party may file an answering brief to the amicus brief within 14 days of issuance of the Board's order granting permission to file the amicus brief. Replies to an answering brief will not be permitted.
(5) The Board may direct the Executive Secretary to solicit amicus briefs. In such cases, the Executive Secretary will specify in the invitation the due date and page length for solicited amicus briefs, and the deadline for the parties to file answering briefs. Absent compelling reasons, no extensions of time will be granted for filing solicited amicus briefs or answering briefs.
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule; correcting amendments.
On March 6, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board revised its rules and regulations. Those revisions inadvertently failed to include certain language, which provided further clarification with respect to the prohibition on producing files and documents, and the prohibition on testifying. This document corrects that Section, as well as additional inadvertent errors that appear throughout the revised rules and regulations.
The correcting amendments are effective September 19, 2017, but are applicable beginning March 6, 2017.
Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).
On March 6, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board revised its rules and regulations and inadvertently failed to include language in § 102.118. This is the first set of corrections to the NLRB revisions that were published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
Accordingly, 29 CFR part 102 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
Sections 1, 6, National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151, 156). Section 102.117 also issued under section 552(a)(4)(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)), and Section 102.117a also issued under section 552a(j) and (k) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k)). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under section 504(c)(1) of the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).
* * * Immediately upon the filing of the answer, Respondent shall serve a copy thereof on the other parties. * * *
(c) At the time and place specified in the order, the officer designated to take the deposition will permit the witness to be examined and cross-examined under oath by all the parties appearing, and the witness's testimony will be reduced to type-writing by the officer or under his/her direction. * * *
(a) * * * The Motion shall immediately be served on the other parties to the proceeding.* * * The Regional Director may rule upon all motions filed with him/her, causing a copy of the ruling to be served on the parties, or may refer the motion to the Hearing Officer, except that if the Regional Director prior to the close of the hearing grants a motion to dismiss the petition, the petitioner may obtain a review of such ruling in the manner prescribed in § 102.71.* * *
(f)
(c) Upon the filing of a request therefor with the Board by any interested person, the Board may review any action of a Regional Director delegated to him/her under Section 3(b) of the Act except as the Board's Rules provide otherwise, but such a review shall not, unless specifically ordered by the Board, operate as a stay of any action by the Regional Director. * * *
(i)(1) * * * All documents filed with the Board under the provisions of this Section shall be double spaced, on 8
(a)
(d)(1)(i)
(c) * * * The request shall contain a complete statement setting forth facts and reasons upon which the request is based.* * *
(a) Whenever it appears necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act, or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, the General Counsel may permit a petition to be filed with him/her in Washington, DC, or may, at any time after a petition has been filed with a Regional Director pursuant to § 102.60, order that such petition and any proceeding that may have been instituted with respect thereto:
(1) Be transferred to and continued before him/her, for the purpose of investigation or consolidation with any other proceeding which may have been instituted in a Regional Office or with him/her; or
(c) The Regional Director may exercise the powers in paragraphs (a)(2) and (4) of this section with respect to proceedings pending in his/her Region.
(b) If it shall appear to the regional director that an expedited election is not warranted but that proceedings under subpart C of this part are warranted, he/she shall so notify the parties in writing with a simple statement of the grounds for his/her decision.
(a) Where an election has been directed by the Regional Director or the Board in accordance with the provisions of §§ 102.77 and 102.78, the Regional Director shall decline to issue a complaint on the charge, and he/she shall so advise the parties in writing, accompanied by a simple statement of the procedural or other grounds for his/her action.* * *
(c) If in connection with an 8(b)(7) proceeding, unfair labor practice charges under other sections of the Act have been filed and the Regional Director upon investigation has declined to issue a complaint upon such charges, he/she shall so advise the parties in writing, accompanied by a simple statement of the procedural or other grounds for his/her action.* * *
* * * The petition shall be in writing and signed, and either must be sworn to before a notary public, Board agent, or other person duly authorized by law to administer oaths and take acknowledgments or must contain a declaration by the person signing it, under the penalties of the Criminal Code, that its contents are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.* * *
(a)
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine on February 23, 2016. Maine's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require States to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. Maine's progress report notes that Maine has implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by the date of the progress
This rule is effective on October 19, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0110. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state.
On July 20, 2017 (82 FR 33471), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Maine's February 23, 2016 Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report SIP revision on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
The specific details of Maine's February 23, 2016 SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's approval are discussed in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received one comment agreeing with EPA's assessment of Maine's February 23, 2016 Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report.
EPA is approving Maine's February 23, 2016 Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report SIP submittal as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
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 New Hampshire's regulation described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 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, 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, 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 20, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
We, NMFS, issue a final rule to list the Maui dolphin (
This final rule is effective October 19, 2017.
Endangered Species Division, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species or populations as endangered or threatened species under the ESA. We determined that the petition had sufficient merit for further consideration, and status reviews were initiated for 27 of the 81 species or populations, including the Hector's dolphin (
We are responsible for determining whether species meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened species and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the reliability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available regarding the species' response to that threat, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the following five threat factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.
In assessing the extinction risk of these two subspecies, we considered demographic risk factors, such as those developed by McElhany
Scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by the Maui dolphin and the SI Hector's dolphin under present conditions and in the foreseeable future are based on our evaluation of the subspecies' demographic risks and section 4(a)(1) threat factors. Our assessment of overall extinction risk considered the likelihood and contribution of each particular factor, synergies among contributing factors, and the cumulative impact of all demographic risks and threats on each subspecies.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect the species. Therefore, prior to making a listing determination, we also assess such protective efforts to determine if they are adequate to mitigate the existing threats.
In response to our request for comments on the proposed rule, we received 75 comments. The comments were submitted by multiple organizations and individual members of the public from a minimum of seven countries (Australia, Bahamas, Canada, England, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States). All of the comments were supportive of the proposed endangered listing for the Maui dolphin. Several commenters suggested listing the SI Hector's dolphin as endangered, and one comment was opposed to the proposed threatened listing for the SI Hector's dolphin. Summaries of comments received regarding the proposed rule and our responses are provided below.
The commenters' updated PBR (using a recovery factor of 0.1) for Maui dolphins ranges from 0.05 to 0.12, depending on the assumed per capita growth rate (Rmax). Their estimated rate of population decline is 2 percent per year, with a 95 percent confidence interval (CI) that ranges from a 1.6 percent decline to a 4.8 percent increase per year, which the commenters note indicates a high level of uncertainty regarding the population trend. The commenters present a Bayesian linear regression analysis that indicates there is a 68 percent probability that the Maui dolphin population is continuing to decline, and their power analysis indicates that the ability (statistical power) to detect population trends in continued population surveys for Maui dolphins is very low.
The updated PBR estimate provided by the commenters for the SI Hector's dolphin ranges from 3 to 24 dolphins per year, depending on the value of Rmax and the offshore range of the dolphins applied. Results of the updated PVA suggest that the abundance of SI Hector's dolphins has declined by 70 percent over the last three generations (39 years), and that the subspecies will continue to decline to 8,283 dolphins (95 percent CI: 4,925-13,931) by the year 2050. The commenters conclude that the new, higher abundance estimate for the SI Hector's dolphins is more than offset by the increased degree of overlap between fishing activities and the more extensive offshore distribution of dolphins on the east coast of the South Island.
In response to the information provided in this comment, we updated our status review report (Manning and Grantz 2017) to include the recent abundance estimate for Maui dolphins from Baker
Overall, while the commenters' report does provide updated analyses, the results presented and the more recent population abundance estimate for Maui dolphins do not change the outlook for this subspecies. The subspecies is at a critically low abundance, is still considered to have a very low threshold for human-caused mortality (
As explained by the commenters, previous estimates of PBR and population viability analyses for the SI Hector's dolphins relied on earlier, lower abundance estimates; whereas, the analyses prepared by the commenters use the latest abundance estimate of 14,849 SI Hector's dolphins (95% CI = 11,923-18,492, Mackenzie and Clement 2014, 2016). As discussed in more detail in the status review report (Manning and Gantz 2017), this most recent abundance estimate for the SI Hector's dolphin is based on a series of aerial, line-transect surveys that were conducted around the South Island during 2010-2015 (Clement
The commenters provide updated PBR estimates for SI Hector's dolphins by region. Unfortunately, however, the east coast of the South Island is the only region for which bycatch estimates are available following implementation of management measures in 2008, making comparisons of bycatch levels to PBR estimates for other regions difficult. The updated PBR estimates for the east coast population presented by the commenters (3-15 dolphins per year) are higher than those published previously by the commenters (0.57-1.28, Slooten and Dawson 2008b); however, they are still largely below the level of bycatch estimated for the east coast using commercial gillnetting observer data (23 dolphins, min-max range of 4—48, Slooten and Davies 2012). This information suggests that bycatch in commercial gillnets alone may be occurring at an unsustainable rate in this region.
The results of the updated PVAs provided by the commenters for the SI Hector's dolphins suggest that a large historical decline in abundance occurred since the 1970's, similar to the finding of previous analyses (
Overall, the results of the analyses presented by the commenters are consistent with our previous conclusions that the SI Hector's dolphin
We agree that SI Hector's dolphin comprises multiple populations, some of which have been estimated to be very small, and that the population structure, in combination with other factors such as small home ranges (
The references provided, however, do not alter our interpretation of the available data regarding population structure and its contribution to extinction risk for SI Hector's dolphins. As discussed in the status review report and proposed rule, the available genetic evidence (based on both mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites) indicates that there are low levels of migration between most neighboring local populations over distances shorter than 100 km (Hamner
We also agree with the comment that bycatch of SI Hector's dolphins continues to pose a threat despite existing fisheries management efforts. As we discuss in our status review, the risk of bycatch in commercial and recreational trawl and gillnet fisheries remains high given the known distribution of the dolphins relative to areas open to fishing, especially on the west and north coasts of the South Island (Faustino
Lastly, we note that one of the commenters who requested an endangered listing for the SI Hector's dolphin equated the population structure of SI Hector's dolphins with “distinct population segments” (DPSs), which are included in the ESA definition of a “species” and are units of vertebrate populations that can be listed under the ESA. We address DPSs and the issue of whether populations of SI Hector's dolphins should be identified as DPSs under our response to Comment 4 (below).
The Commission also noted that one or more of the regional populations of SI Hector's dolphins could meet the definition of a DPS. The Commission states that the status review and proposed rule did not explore the possibility that any of these populations could merit separate listing consideration or could contribute to a threatened listing of the subspecies.
We disagree with the comment that we applied an “unrealistically long” timeframe as the “foreseeable future” in our analysis and that we should revise it to be “a period of time relevant to mitigation of the bycatch threat.” The comment explicitly refers to a discussion presented in both the status review and proposed rule regarding the rate of decline of SI Hector's dolphins around Banks Peninsula as estimated by Gormley
As requested by the Commission, we reconsidered our conclusion regarding the adequacy of existing management measures relative to the threat of bycatch of SI Hector's dolphins. We also searched for additional data and information regarding bycatch of Hector's dolphins and associated management measures. We did not find any updated information regarding the rate or extent of bycatch or the effectiveness of current bycatch reduction efforts around the South Island, nor did the Commission provide any data or information regarding the adequacy of bycatch management measures. We did, however, receive a letter, dated November 22, 2016, from the New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC), affirming the New Zealand government's commitment to the long-term viability of Hector's dolphins and indicating that the DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) will be undertaking a review of their Threat Management Plan in 2018. The effectiveness of existing protections for the dolphins will be assessed as part of that review. However, we cannot speculate on whether or what changes to existing protections may occur in the future as a result of that review process.
During our search for additional information, we noticed that since publication of the proposed rule to list SI Hector's dolphins in September 2016 (81 FR 64110), five SI Hector's dolphin mortalities had been added to the DOC's incident database. Cause of death, which was determinable for three of the five dolphins, is listed as disease for two dolphins and bycatch in a commercial trawl net for the third dolphin. We also found a recent press release, dated June 27, 2017, from the New Zealand MPI indicating that MPI was investigating the death of two other SI Hector's dolphins found in March 2017, one near Banks Peninsula on the East Coast and one in Greymouth on the West Coast (
We agree with the Commission that the population-level effects of disease
Lastly, we disagree with the suggestion that we should explore the possibility of listing separate distinct population segments (DPS) of SI Hector's dolphins or consider how their individual statuses might contribute to a threatened listing for the subspecies. Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” A joint policy with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (together the “Services”) lays out two elements that must be considered when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species (or subspecies); and (2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the species (or subspecies) (“the DPS Policy,” 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). As stated in the DPS Policy, Congress expressed its expectation that the Services would exercise authority with regard to DPSs sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates such action is warranted. In this particular case, because we reached a determination that the SI Hector's dolphin warrants listing at the subspecies level, such an analysis would be superfluous. In addition, because we were not petitioned to list the SI Hector's dolphins as separate DPSs, there is no requirement that we commit additional agency resources to conduct an analysis and determine whether SI Hector's dolphins could be listed separately at the DPS level. Furthermore, we note there is no clear conservation benefit to the subspecies by pursuing such an option.
We also note that, as discussed in our proposed rule and status review, several studies have demonstrated short-term behavioral changes in SI Hector's dolphins in response to dolphin-watching tour boats and `swim-with' activities (
U.S. import of fish or fish products from a nation's fisheries with associated incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals may be subject to NMFS' recent regulation promulgated under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (81 FR 54390, August 15, 2016). This regulation established criteria and a formal process for evaluating foreign fisheries and their frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Additional information on this regulation and its implementation are available online at
In response to the comment on marine renewable energy facilities and projects, we reviewed the literature submitted and conducted a search for additional information regarding these types of projects within New Zealand. According to the national energy efficiency strategy for 2017-2022, New Zealand has set a target of generating 90 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by the year 2025 (MBIE 2017). However, very little information is available regarding specific renewable marine energy projects or associated impacts in New Zealand. Tidal and wave energy development, in particular, appear to be at a very nascent stage. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) is New Zealand's government agency charged with promoting energy efficiency, including the use of renewable sources of energy. According to EECA's Web site, the agency provided funding to support six wave or tidal projects from 2007 to 2011 but none of those projects has proceeded past some initial stage. A tidal power project has been proposed for the main channel of Kaipara Harbor, which lies towards the northern edge of the Maui dolphin range; however, the status of that facility is unclear. Within the range of SI Hector's dolphins, as of 2011, two tidal energy projects were being pursued in Cook Strait, and research and development to support a wave energy project in Pegasus Bay was underway (Wright and Leary 2011). The current status of these projects is also unclear. The EECA Web site states that, given the relatively substantial expense of these projects, the agency does not foresee marine energy as a major energy contributor in New Zealand (see
We did not receive, nor did we find, data or references that presented substantial new information to change our proposed listing determinations. We did, however, make several revisions to the status review report (Manning and Grantz 2017) to incorporate, as appropriate, relevant information received in response to our request for public comments. Specifically, we updated the status review to include the more recently completed 2015-2016 abundance estimate for Maui dolphins and associated results (
Status reviews for the Maui dolphin and the SI Hector's dolphin were completed by NMFS staff from the Office of Protected Resources. To complete the status reviews, we compiled the best available data and information on the subspecies' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status by examining the petition and cited references and by conducting a comprehensive literature search and review. We also considered information submitted to us in response to our petition finding. The status review report provides a thorough discussion of the life history, threats, demographic risks, and overall extinction risk for both dolphin subspecies. The status review was subjected to peer review by three, independent reviewers. All peer reviewer comments are available at
As stated previously and as discussed in the proposed rule (81 FR 64110; September 19, 2016), we considered whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are contributing to the extinction risk of the Maui and SI Hector's dolphins. Several commenters provided additional information related to threats such as forms of habitat modification and degradation, under-reporting of bycatch, and the projected population decline of SI Hector's dolphins. The information provided was consistent with or reinforced information in the status review report and proposed rule, and thus, did not change our conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information, discussion, and conclusions regarding the factors affecting the two dolphin subspecies from the final status review report (Manning and Grantz 2017) and the
As discussed previously, the status review evaluated the demographic risks to both dolphin subspecies according to four categories—abundance and trends, population growth/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and genetic diversity. As a concluding step, after considering all of the available information regarding demographic and other threats to the subspecies, we rated each subspecies' extinction risk according to a qualitative scale (high, moderate, and low risk). Although we did update our status review to incorporate the most recent abundance estimate for Maui dolphins and information from two additional studies regarding population fragmentation within SI Hector's dolphins, none of the comments or information we received on the proposed rule changed the outcome of our extinction risk evaluations for either subspecies. Our conclusions regarding extinction risk for these subspecies remain the same. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information, discussion, and conclusions on the extinction risk of the two dolphin subspecies in the final status review report (Manning and Grantz 2017) and proposed rule (81 FR 64110; September 19, 2016).
In addition to regulatory measures (
The present estimated abundance of Maui dolphins is critically low, and the subspecies faces additional demographic risks due to greatly reduced genetic diversity and a low intrinsic population growth rate. Past declines, estimated to be on the order of about 90 percent (Martien
The SI Hector's dolphin has experienced substantial population declines since the 1970s, has relatively low genetic diversity, a low intrinsic population growth rate, and a fragmented population structure. Although historical data are lacking, Slooten (2007a) estimated that the SI Hector's dolphin population has declined by about 73 percent between 1970 and 2007, and available population viability analyses indicate that the SI Hector's dolphin is likely to continue to decline unless bycatch mortality is reduced (Davies
Current levels of bycatch are contributing to the decline of this subspecies (Slooten and Davies 2012). Additional, lesser threats, such as disease and tourism impacts, are likely exacerbating the rate of decline and thereby contributing to the overall extinction risk of this subspecies. Given recent abundance estimates for the total population and evidence of a slowed rate of decline following expanded fisheries management measures, we find that this subspecies is not presently in danger of extinction. However, significant historical declines and the projected decline for most populations, combined with a low population growth rate, low genetic diversity, limited population connectivity, and the ongoing threats of bycatch, disease, and tourism, provide a strong indication that this subspecies is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. We therefore find that this subspecies meets the definition of threatened under the ESA and list it as such.
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include the development and implementation of recovery plans (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); designation of critical habitat, if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and a requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536). For endangered species, protections also include prohibitions related to “take” and trade (16 U.S.C. 1538). Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). These prohibitions do not apply to species listed as threatened unless protective regulations are issued under section 4(d) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)), leaving it to the Secretary's discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the ESA's prohibitions to the species. Section 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species.
Recognition of the species' imperiled status through listing may also promote conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires us to identify, to the maximum
Because we are listing the Maui dolphin as endangered, all of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to this subspecies. Section 9(a)(1) includes prohibitions against the import, export, use in foreign commerce, and “take” of the listed species. These prohibitions apply to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the United States, its territorial sea, or on the high seas. Activities that could result in a violation of section 9 prohibitions for Maui dolphins include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce any Maui dolphin or any of its parts, in the course of a commercial activity;
(2) Selling or offering for sale in interstate commerce any part, except antique articles at least 100 years old; and
(3) Importing or exporting Maui dolphins or any parts of these dolphins.
Whether a violation results from a particular activity is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. Further, an activity not listed here may in fact constitute a violation.
Although the determination of whether any given activity constitutes a violation is fact dependent, we consider the following actions, depending on the circumstances, as being unlikely to violate the prohibitions in ESA section 9 with regard to Maui dolphins: (1) Take authorized by, and carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of, an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for purposes of scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species; and (2) continued possession of Maui dolphins or any parts that were in possession at the time of listing. Such parts may be non-commercially exported or imported; however, the importer or exporter must be able to provide evidence to show that the parts meet the criteria of ESA section 9(b)(1) (
Section 11(f) of the ESA gives NMFS the authority to promulgate regulations that may be appropriate to enforce the ESA. Thus, we could promulgate future regulations to regulate trade or holding of Maui dolphins. However, we do not foresee a necessity for such regulations at this time.
Because we are listing the SI Hector's dolphins as threatened, the prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA will not automatically apply to this subspecies. As stated above, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the section 9(a) prohibitions to threatened species, and authorizes us to issue regulations that are deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Because SI Hector's dolphins occur entirely outside of the United States, and are not commercially traded with the United States, extending the section 9(a) prohibitions to this subspecies will not result in added conservation benefits or species protection, particularly given the fact that such trade is already generally prohibited under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1372). Therefore, we do not intend to issue section 4(d) regulations for SI Hector's dolphins at this time.
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and joint NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It is unlikely that the listing of these subspecies under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because these subspecies occur outside of the United States and are unlikely to be affected by U.S. Federal actions.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed if such areas are determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat cannot be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)). Maui and SI Hector's dolphins are endemic to New Zealand and do not occur within areas under U.S. jurisdiction. There is no basis to conclude that any unoccupied areas under U.S. jurisdiction are essential for the conservation of either subspecies. Therefore, we do not intend to propose any critical habitat designations for either subspecies.
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review establishing a minimum peer review standard. We solicited peer review comments on the draft status review report from three scientists with expertise on Hector's dolphins. We received and reviewed comments from these scientists, and, prior to publication of the proposed rule, their comments were incorporated into the draft status review report (Manning and Grantz 2016), which was then made available for public comment. As stated earlier, peer reviewer comments on the status review are available at
A complete list of the references used is available upon request (see
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA restricts the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing and sets the basis upon which listing determinations must be made. Based on the requirements in section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory
In addition, this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant federalism effects and that a federalism assessment is not required.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Transportation.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, §§ 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361
(h) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification that the Northeast Distant Area (NED) quota is filled and Atlantic Tunas Longline Category Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) accounting rules now apply in the NED.
NMFS announces that the 25-mt quota available for Atlantic bluefin tuna bycatch (including landings and dead discards) by the Longline category in the Northeast Distant gear restricted
This notification is valid from September 12, 2017 to December 31, 2017.
Tom Warren or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
The total U.S. bluefin tuna annual quota from ICCAT includes, as in previous years, a 25-mt set-aside for bluefin tuna bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries operating in the vicinity of the ICCAT management area boundary. See ICCAT Recommendation 14-05 and 80 FR 52198 (August 28, 2015) (implementing the quota domestically). For management and monitoring purposes, NMFS implements this set-aside in the NED as quota available to Atlantic Tunas Longline category permitted vessels. Longline is not a permitted gear for directed fishing on bluefin tuna; any catch must be incidental to fishing for other species. Accounting for this bycatch includes all catch (landings and dead discards). The NED is defined as the Atlantic Ocean area bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order stated: 35°00′ N. lat., 60°00′ W. long.; 55°00′ N. lat., 60°00′ W. long.; 55°00′ N. lat., 20°00′ W. long.; 35°00′ N. lat., 20°00′ W. long.; 35°00′ N. lat., 60°00′ W. long.
Under Amendment 7, rules were implemented for Atlantic Tunas Longline category permitted vessels fishing in the NED. See 50 CFR 635.15(b)(8). Any bluefin tuna bycatch by permitted vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear in the NED count toward the ICCAT-allocated separate NED quota (25 mt) until that quota has been filled. Prior to the NED quota being filled, the bluefin tuna accounting requirements of the IBQ Program do not apply to those vessels, under the provisions adopted in Amendment 7. Once the NED quota is filled, Atlantic Tunas Longline category permitted vessels may fish or continue to fish in the NED, but these vessels must then abide by the applicable requirements of the IBQ program, which requires individual vessel accounting for bluefin tuna bycatch using IBQ allocation available to the vessel (either through its own quota share or leasing allocation from another vessel). Bluefin tuna must be accounted for as described at § 635.15(b)(4) and (5).
Based on Atlantic bluefin tuna dealer data and IBQ system data, as of September 12, 2017, 40,763 lb (18.5 mt) of bluefin tuna has been landed, and 254 lb (0.1 mt) of bluefin tuna has been discarded dead in the NED; an additional 21 bluefin tuna have been reported as retained through Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) bluefin tuna catch reports. These 21 retained bluefin tuna reported via VMS equate to approximately 13,230 lb (6.0 mt) of catch (based on the average weight of recently landed bluefin from the NED), which brings the total estimated bluefin tuna catch from the NED to 54,247 lb (24.6 mt). Based on these data, NMFS has determined that the 25 mt set-aside has been filled as of September 12, 2017.
Because the NED quota has been caught, vessels are notified that they must account for any bycatch of bluefin tuna (landings and/or dead discards) in the NED using IBQ allocation as specified in the regulations. § 635.15(b)(8). NMFS has determined that the NED quota of 25 mt was attained as of September 12, 2017. Thus, the IBQ online system will start accounting for bluefin tuna bycatch from the NED utilizing IBQ as of that date.
NMFS will continue to monitor bluefin tuna bycatch by vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear using VMS and dealer data, as well as monitor the accounting for such catch in the IBQ system, to ensure that vessels are accountable for their individual bluefin bycatch and that quotas are managed consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and U.S. international quota obligations. For fishery updates, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (888) 872-8862 or (978) 281-9260, access the following internet address:
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure of the General category fishery.
NMFS closes the General category fishery for large medium and giant (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, September 17, 2017, through September 30, 2017.
Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971
NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.
The base quota for the General category is 466.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. The subquotas for each time period are as follows: 24.7 mt for January; 233.3 mt for June through August; 123.7 mt for September; 60.7 mt for October through November; and 24.3 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward within the fishing year, which coincides with the calendar year, from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods. On December 19, 2016, NMFS published an inseason action transferring 16.3 mt of BFT quota from the December 2017 subquota to the January 2017 subquota period (81 FR 91873). For 2017, NMFS also transferred 40 mt from the Reserve to the General category effective March 2, resulting in an adjusted General category quota of 506.7 mt (82 FR 12747, March 7, 2017).
Based on the best available landings information for the General category BFT fishery (
Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. These fisheries are currently underway and the quota for the subcategory is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest because the subquota is projected to be reached shortly and any delay could lead to further exceedance, which may result in the need to reduce quota for the General category later in the year and thus could affect later fishing opportunities. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the South Texas Onion Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.05 to $0.065 per 50-pound equivalent of onions handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order and is comprised of producers and handlers of onions operating within the area of production. Assessments upon onion handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by October 19, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet:
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202)720-8938, or Email:
This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 959, as amended (7 CFR part 959), regulating the handling of onions grown in South Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, South Texas onion handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein would be applicable to all assessable onions beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This proposed rule would increase the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.05 to $0.065 per 50-pound equivalent of onions.
The South Texas onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of South Texas onions. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information
The Committee met on June 7, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $149,807, the same as budgeted last fiscal year, and an assessment rate of $0.065 per 50-pound equivalent of onions. The assessment rate of $0.065 is $0.015 higher than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended the increase so assessments would be sufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures while providing additional funds to help replenish the Committee's reserve fund, which has been depleted due to declines in production. With the Committee's recommended $0.015 increase and estimated shipments of approximately three million 50-pound equivalents, assessment income should be approximately $195,000.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 fiscal year include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management costs. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2016-17.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of South Texas onions, and the level of funds in reserve. As mentioned earlier, onion shipments for the year are estimated at three million 50-pound equivalents, which should provide $195,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. The Committee currently has no money in reserves.
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 60 producers of onions in the production area and approximately 30 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted grower price for South Texas onions during the 2015-16 season was around $12.30 per 50-pound equivalent. According to Committee data, total shipments were around three million 50-pound equivalents. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. The average handler price for South Texas onions during the 2015-16 season was around $14.05 per 50-pound equivalent. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. Thus, the majority of South Texas onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
This proposal would increase the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.05 to $0.065 per 50-pound equivalent of Texas onions. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $149,807 and an assessment rate of $0.065 per 50-pound equivalent. The proposed assessment rate of $0.065 is $0.015 higher than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable onions for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at three million 50-pound equivalents. Thus, the $0.065 rate should provide $195,000 in assessment income and be adequate to meet this year's expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $50,000 for compliance, $37,050 for administrative, and $32,942 for management. Budgeted expenses for these items were the same in 2016-17.
With the 2017-18 crop estimated to be three million 50-pound equivalents, the current assessment rate would be sufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures but would not provide any additional monies to help replenish the Committee's reserve fund, which has been depleted due to declines in production. The Committee considered the proposed expenses and the state of the reserve fund and recommended the assessment increase. With the Committee's recommended $0.015 increase, assessment income should be approximately $195,000 and be adequate to cover anticipated expenses and add funds to the authorized reserve.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the South Texas onion industry. The Committee ultimately determined that 2017-18 expenditures of $149,807 were appropriate, and the recommended assessment rate would generate sufficient revenue to meet its expenses.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for the 2017-18 season could be around $12.00 per 50-pound equivalent of Texas onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue could be about 0.5 percent.
This action would increase the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the South Texas onion industry, and all interested
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 (Vegetable and Specialty Crops). No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large South Texas onion handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Thirty days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2017-18 fiscal period begins on August 1, 2017, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable onions handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action, which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years.
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 959 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2017, an assessment rate of $0.065 per 50-pound equivalent is established for South Texas onions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain fuselage structures are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require reinforcement modifications of various structural parts of the fuselage, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 3, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0207, dated October 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An analysis conducted on A330 aeroplanes identified structural areas which are susceptible to widespread fatigue damage (WFD).
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to crack initiation and undetected propagation, leading to reduced structural integrity of the aeroplane, possibly resulting in rapid depressurisation and consequent injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a number of modifications (Mod) and published associated Service Bulletins (SB) for embodiment in service, to provide instructions to reinforce the various structural parts of the fuselage.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires accomplishment of these modifications and reinforcements [and related investigative and corrective actions].
Related investigative actions include a rotating probe hole inspection for cracking. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information. This service information describes procedures for modifications and reinforcement of various structural parts of the fuselage. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3144, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2006.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3144, Revision 04, dated November 23, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3222, Revision 01, dated March 31, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3223, Revision 00, dated January 19, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3224, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated April 14, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3225, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated June 8, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3226, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendices 02, 03, and 04, dated October 27, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3236, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendices 02 and 03, dated March 23, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3237, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3238, Revision 01, dated October 19, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3239, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3244, Revision 01, dated August 2, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3248, Revision 02, dated July 27, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3251, Revision 01, dated June 23, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3252, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3257, Revision 01, dated March 15, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3258, Revision 00, dated April 20, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3259, Revision 02, dated July 18, 2016.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3263, Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01 and including Appendix 02, dated December 1, 2015.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3273, Revision 00, dated September 28, 2016.
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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
The compliance time for the reinforcement modifications specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is addressed before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 99 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by November 3, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain fuselage structures are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent crack initiation and undetected propagation in the fuselage, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, before exceeding the applicable total flight cycles or total flight
For the purposes of this AD, table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD identifies the WV group designations specified in the “Applicability” column of Table 1 to paragraph (g) and Table 3 to paragraph (i) of this AD:
(1) Do not do the applicable modifications required by paragraph (g) of this AD before the applicable times specified in table 3 to paragraph (i) of this AD. Where two limits (total flight cycles and total flight hours) within the same sub-row of the table are specified, both times must be exceeded before accomplishment of the modification. For airplanes already modified before the threshold specified in table 3 to paragraph (i) of this AD is reached, within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, obtain instructions for additional maintenance tasks (modifications/inspections) from and 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), and accomplish those tasks within the compliance time specified therein.
(2) For airplanes that have already reached or exceeded the SMP threshold(s), as specified for each action in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable, accomplishment of the modification can be deferred for a period not exceeding 12 months after the effective of this AD; except for accomplishment of the modifications specified in A330-53-3237, R1, which can be deferred for a period not exceeding 15 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3) If any service information specified in paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.
For airplanes that have been modified before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3144, Revision 00, dated August 23, 2005; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3222, Revision 00, dated January 15, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3237, Revision 00, dated January 15, 2015, as applicable: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the additional work specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3144, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2006; A330-53-3222, R1; and A330-53-3237, R1; as applicable.
This paragraph provides credit for applicable actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(19) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3144, Revision 01, dated July 25, 2006.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3144, Revision 02, dated April 20, 2011.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3144, Revision 03, dated January 15, 2015.
(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3224, Revision 00, dated January 16, 2015.
(5) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3225, Revision 00, dated January 16, 2015.
(6) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3225, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2016.
(7) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3226, Revision 00, dated January 15, 2015.
(8) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3226, Revision 01, dated March 3, 2016.
(9) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3236, Revision 00, dated January 15, 2015.
(10) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3236, Revision 01, dated August 24, 2015.
(11) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3238, Revision 00, dated January 15, 2015.
(12) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3239, Revision 00, dated April 20, 2015.
(13) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3244, Revision 00, dated April 7, 2015.
(14) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3251, Revision 00, dated May 13, 2015.
(15) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3252, Revision 00, dated April 10, 2015.
(16) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3257, Revision 00, dated July 21, 2015.
(17) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3259, Revision 00, dated May 11, 2015.
(18) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3259, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2016.
(19) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3263, Revision 00, dated July 21, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0207, dated October 19, 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 Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Partial withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations that provide guidance on the definitions of registration-required obligation and registered form, including guidance on
Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 18, 2017.
Send submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125374-16), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125374-16), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Spence Hanemann at (202) 317-6980; concerning submissions of comments and requesting a hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under control number 1545-0945 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in § 1.163-5(b), which permits issuers of registration-required obligations to satisfy the requirement for those obligations to be in registered form by maintaining a book entry system. Sections 163(f) and 149(a) require that certain obligations be in registered form and expressly permit issuers to satisfy that requirement through a book entry system. Accordingly, the proposed regulations permit issuers to satisfy the registration requirement through a book entry system and detail certain arrangements that qualify as book entry systems. The collection of information in proposed § 1.163-5(b) is an increase in the total annual burden under control number 1545-0945. The respondents are businesses and other for-profit organizations, non-profit organizations, and state, local and tribal governments.
Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by November 20, 2017.
Comments are specifically requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;
How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;
How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by section 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR parts 1, 5f, and 46 under sections 103, 149, 163, 165, 860D, 871, 881, 1287, 4701, 6045, and 6049 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
The classification of an obligation as in bearer or registered form has significant tax implications because a number of Code provisions impose sanctions on issuers and holders of registration-required obligations that are not issued in registered form. An obligation not issued in registered form is a bearer form obligation. Most of the Code provisions that pertain to registration-required obligations were enacted as part of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Public Law 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, § 310. Among these provisions, section 163(f) denies an issuer an interest deduction for interest on a registration-required obligation that is not in registered form. Section 4701 imposes an excise tax on the issuer of a registration-required obligation that is not in registered form. The excise tax is equal to 1 percent of the principal amount of the obligation multiplied by the number of calendar years (or portions thereof) between the issue date of the obligation and the date of maturity. Section 149(a) provides that interest on a registration-required bond is not exempt from tax under section 103(a) unless the bond is in registered form. In addition, section 871(h) and section 881(c) exempt from federal income tax portfolio interest from sources within the U.S. received by a nonresident alien or foreign corporation (portfolio interest exception) only if the obligation with respect to which the interest was paid is in registered form. Similar restrictions are found in sections 165(j) (generally denying the holder a deduction for a loss sustained on a registration-required obligation not in registered form), 312(m) (generally providing that the issuer's earnings and profits cannot be decreased by interest paid on a registration-required obligation not in registered form), and 1287 (generally treating the holder's gain on sale of a registration-required obligation not in registered form as ordinary income).
Historically, the Code provisions referenced in the preceding paragraph generally did not apply to obligations that complied with the foreign-targeting rules of prior section 163(f)(2)(B) and § 1.163-5(c) (foreign-targeted bearer obligations). Under the foreign-targeting rules, an issuer could issue foreign-targeted bearer obligations without penalty provided the obligations were issued under arrangements reasonably designed to ensure that the obligations
The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (the HIRE Act), Public Law 111-147, 124 Stat. 71, section 502, repealed section 163(f)(2)(B) and generally eliminated the special treatment of foreign-targeted bearer obligations. Foreign-targeted bearer obligations issued after March 18, 2012, are subject to the sanctions on bearer form obligations under sections 149(a), 163(f), 165(j), 312(m), and 1287. The HIRE Act also revoked the portfolio interest exception for foreign-targeted bearer obligations, thus requiring that obligations issued after March 18, 2012, be in registered form to qualify for that exception. The HIRE Act did not, however, repeal the foreign-targeted bearer obligation exception to the excise tax under section 4701. See section 4701(b)(1)(B)(i).
Under section 163(f)(2)(A), as amended by the HIRE Act, the term
Section 5f.163-1(b)(2) provides that the determination as to whether an obligation is of a type offered to the public is based on whether similar obligations are in fact publicly offered or traded. On January 21, 1993, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the IRS published in the
Section 1.163-5T provides rules to address whether pass-through certificates are registration-required obligations. In their most common form, pass-through certificates are issued by an investment entity (typically a trust) that holds a pool of obligations, such as mortgage loans. Each pass-through certificate represents an interest in the investment entity.
To accommodate these securitization transactions, § 1.163-5T(d)(1) generally provides that a pass-through certificate evidencing an interest in a pool of mortgage loans that is treated as a trust of which the grantor is the owner is considered to be a registration-required obligation if, standing alone, the pass-through certificate meets the definition of a registration-required obligation. Section 1.163-5T(d)(1) also applies to “similar evidence of interest in a similar pooled fund or pooled trust treated as a grantor trust,” although commenters have noted the ambiguity of the reference. Similarly, § 1.871-14(d)(1) provides that interest received on a pass-through certificate qualifies for the portfolio interest exception if, standing alone, the pass-through certificate is in registered form.
Commenters have asked that Treasury and the IRS describe the types of arrangements that qualify as pass-through certificates. Specifically, commenters have requested that Treasury and the IRS amend the definition of a pass-through certificate to clarify that the issuer of a pass-through certificate may be either a grantor trust or another type of entity, such as a partnership or a disregarded entity, so long as the obligations in the pool are held through an arrangement that meets the requirements to be in registered form. Commenters have also requested that Treasury and the IRS amend § 1.871-14(d)(1) so that the definition of pass-through certificate for purposes of the portfolio interest exception is identical to the definition of pass-through certificate under § 1.163-5T(d)(1).
For purposes of determining whether an obligation is in registered form under section 163(f),
Generally, under § 5f.103-1(c), an obligation is in registered form if: (1) The obligation is registered as to both principal and any stated interest with the issuer (or its agent) and any transfer of the obligation may be effected only by surrender of the old obligation and reissuance to the new holder; (2) the right to principal and stated interest with respect to the obligation may be transferred only through a book entry system maintained by the issuer or its agent; or (3) the obligation is registered as to both principal and stated interest with the issuer or its agent and may be transferred both by surrender and reissuance and through a book entry system. An obligation is considered transferable through a book entry system if ownership of an interest in the obligation is required to be reflected in a book entry, whether or not physical securities are issued. An obligation that would otherwise be considered to be in registered form is not considered to be in registered form if the obligation may
Since the publication of § 5f.103-1, market practices have changed with respect to how interests in obligations are recorded and transferred. For example, many obligations trade in fully dematerialized form. An obligation that is fully dematerialized is not represented by a physical (paper) certificate, and a clearing organization that is the registered holder of the obligation operates an electronic book entry system that identifies the clearing organization's member or members holding the obligation (or interests in the obligation). The clearing organization facilitates and records transfers of the obligation (or interests in the obligation) among the clearing organization's members. The members (typically, banks or broker-dealers), in turn, record their clients' ownership of the obligation (or interests in the obligation) in their book entry systems. Alternatively, an obligation may be represented by a physical global certificate that is nominally in bearer form but that is immobilized in a clearing organization, which handles the obligation thereafter exactly as it does an obligation that was fully dematerialized when issued. Commenters have requested additional guidance on how the registered form rules in § 5f.103-1 apply to these arrangements.
Treasury and the IRS provided guidance on how to apply the registered form rules to certain of these arrangements in Notice 2006-99, 2006-2 CB 907. Notice 2006-99 addresses an arrangement in which no physical certificates are issued and under which ownership interests in bonds are required to be represented only by book entries in a dematerialized book entry system maintained by a clearing organization. Notice 2006-99 provides that an obligation issued under such an arrangement is treated as in registered form notwithstanding the ability of holders to obtain physical certificates in bearer form upon the termination of the business of the clearing organization without a successor.
The HIRE Act also addressed dematerialized book entry systems. For obligations issued after March 18, 2012, section 163(f)(3), as amended by the HIRE Act, provides that, for purposes of section 163(f), a dematerialized book entry system or other book entry system specified by the Secretary will be treated as a book entry system described in section 149(a)(3). The Joint Committee on Taxation's technical explanation of the HIRE Act further explained that an obligation “that is formally in bearer form is treated, for the purposes of section 163(f), as held in a book entry system as long as the debt obligation may be transferred only through a dematerialized book entry system or other book entry system specified by the Secretary.” J. Comm. on Tax'n,
Commenters expressed concern that the explicit reference to a “dematerialized book entry system” in section 163(f)(3), as amended by the HIRE Act, would create uncertainty about obligations issued in a manner not specifically described in Notice 2006-99. In particular, commenters requested guidance to address the treatment of obligations represented by a physical global certificate that is nominally in bearer form, but that is immobilized in a clearing system. In addition, commenters requested guidance regarding whether an obligation will be considered to be in registered form if holders may obtain physical certificates in bearer form under circumstances not described in Notice 2006-99.
In response to these comments, Treasury and the IRS published Notice 2012-20, 2012-13 IRB 574, on March 26, 2012. Notice 2012-20 provides additional guidance on the definition of registered form and further states that Treasury and the IRS intend to publish regulations consistent with the guidance described in the notice. Under Notice 2012-20, an obligation is considered to be in registered form if it is issued either through a dematerialized book entry system in which beneficial interests are transferable only through a book entry system maintained by a clearing organization (or by an agent of the clearing organization) or through a clearing system in which the obligation is effectively immobilized. Notice 2012-20 provides that an obligation is considered to be effectively immobilized if: (1) The obligation is represented by one or more global securities in physical form that are issued to and held by a clearing organization (or by a custodian or depository acting as an agent of the clearing organization) for the benefit of purchasers of interests in the obligation under arrangements that prohibit the transfer of the global securities except to a successor clearing organization subject to the same terms; and (2) beneficial interests in the underlying obligation are transferable only through a book entry system maintained by the clearing organization (or an agent of the clearing organization). Notice 2012-20 further states that an interest in an obligation is considered to be transferable only through a book entry system if the interest would be considered transferable through a book entry system under § 5f.103-1(c)(2), except that holders may obtain physical certificates in bearer form in certain limited circumstances stated in the notice. Finally, Notice 2012-20 states that, for purposes of determining when an obligation is a registration-required obligation under section 4701, rules identical to the foreign-targeting rules under section 163(f)(2)(B), prior to its amendment by the HIRE Act, and § 1.163-5(c) will apply to obligations issued after March 18, 2012.
Consistent with Notice 2012-20, these proposed regulations amend the definition of registered form to take into account current market practices and changes made by the HIRE Act, including the repeal of the foreign-targeting rules in section 163(f)(2)(B). In addition, these proposed regulations amend the definition of a registration-required obligation in two ways. First, the proposed regulations specify the types of obligations that are treated as “of a type offered to the public” and withdraw the 1993 proposed regulations. Second, the proposed regulations take into account comments requesting clarification on the types of arrangements that qualify as pass-through certificates.
Though the definitions of the terms
Consistent with the 1993 proposed regulations, Treasury and the IRS continue to believe that it is appropriate to determine whether an obligation is of a type offered to the public by reference to whether the obligation is “traded on an established market.” Although a number of Code and regulation sections refer to and define that phrase (for example, sections 453, 1092, 1273, and 7704, as well as the regulations promulgated under those Code sections), Treasury and the IRS have concluded that the definition provided in § 1.1273-2(f) is most appropriate for purposes of defining a registration-required obligation. Thus, the proposed regulations generally treat an obligation as of a type offered to the public if the obligation is traded on an established market as determined under § 1.1273-2(f). For this purpose, however, the proposed regulations do not take into account the exception for small debt issues in § 1.1273-2(f)(6).
Commenters indicated that an entity that issues pass-through certificates may hold a pool of debt instruments that is either fixed or that changes over time. For example, the issuing entity may have the right to acquire additional assets after formation, or the right to dispose of assets at any time. In those situations, the entity generally will not be classified as a grantor trust for federal tax purposes, but that does not preclude it from issuing pass-through certificates. To address these situations, the proposed regulations amend the definition of a pass-through certificate to provide that a pass-through certificate may be issued by a grantor trust or a similar fund, and specify that a similar fund includes entities that are partnerships or disregarded for federal tax purposes and funds that have the power to vary the assets they hold or the sequence of payments to holders. A similar fund, however, does not include a business entity classified as a corporation.
In addition, Treasury and the IRS have concluded that an arrangement that satisfies the definition of a registration-required obligation and the registered form rules should be treated the same as a pass-through certificate even if the arrangement is with respect to only one underlying obligation or if the arrangement is treated as co-ownership of one or more obligations (rather than, for purposes of TEFRA or otherwise, ownership of an entity that holds the underlying obligations). The proposed regulations eliminate the requirement that the fund hold a pool of loans and replace it with a requirement that the fund primarily hold debt instruments. Thus, a fund can hold one or more debt instruments, so long as the fund primarily holds debt instruments.
In addition, the proposed regulations treat an interest that evidences co-ownership of one or more obligations (including a participation interest) as a registration-required obligation if, standing alone, the interest satisfies the definition of a registration-required obligation. The proposed regulations also propose to amend § 1.871-14(d)(1) to include a cross-reference to the rules for pass-through certificates and participation interests in proposed § 1.163-5(a)(3)(i) and (ii) such that similar rules apply for purposes of the portfolio interest exception.
The proposed regulations amend the definition of registered form in a number of ways. First, the proposed regulations provide that an obligation is considered to be in registered form if it is transferable through a book entry system, including a dematerialized book entry system, maintained by the issuer of the obligation, an agent of the issuer, or a clearing organization. A clearing organization includes an entity that holds obligations for its members or maintains a system that reflects the ownership interests of members and transfers of obligations among members' accounts without the necessity of physical delivery of the obligation.
Second, the proposed regulations provide that an obligation represented by a physical certificate in bearer form will be considered to be in registered form if the physical certificate is effectively immobilized. To be effectively immobilized, the physical certificate evidencing an obligation must be issued to and held by a clearing organization for the benefit of purchasers of interests in the obligation under arrangements that prohibit the transfer of the physical certificate except to a successor clearing organization and permit transfers of ownership interests in the underlying obligation only through a book entry system maintained by the clearing organization (or a successor clearing organization). As suggested in comments, the proposed regulations change the requirement in Notice 2012-20 that a successor clearing organization hold the physical certificate subject to the same terms as the predecessor; Treasury and the IRS concluded that it is sufficient if the successor clearing organization has rules that effectively immobilize the physical certificate.
Third, the proposed regulations permit holders of obligations (or interests in obligations) to have a right to obtain physical certificates evidencing the obligation (or interests in the obligation) in bearer form without causing the obligation to be treated as not in registered form in two circumstances: (1) A termination of the clearing organization's business without a successor; or (2) the issuance of physical securities at the issuer's request upon a change in tax law that would be adverse to the issuer but for the issuance of physical securities in bearer form. This exception from bearer form treatment is consistent with the guidance provided in Notice 2012-20, except that the proposed regulations do not permit a holder to have a right to obtain a physical bearer certificate if there is an issuer event of default (default exception). Treasury and the IRS understand that in certain situations holders may be required to obtain physical certificates to pursue claims against the issuer, but in such instances it would be appropriate to expect those physical certificates to be issued in registered form. Taxpayers may rely on the default exception in Notice 2012-20 for obligations issued prior to publication of a Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
After the occurrence of one of the two events described in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph, an obligation will no longer be in registered form if a holder, or a group of holders acting collectively, has a right to obtain a physical certificate in bearer form, regardless of whether any option to obtain a physical certificate in bearer form has actually been exercised.
Commenters requested that examples 10 and 19 set forth in § 1.881-3(e) be removed or revised to take into account the repeal of the foreign-targeted bearer obligation exception. Consistent with these comments, the proposed regulations propose to remove those examples.
Commenters requested clarification on whether the foreign-targeting rules under § 1.163-5(c) would apply to obligations issued after March 18, 2012, for purposes of section 4701. Consistent
Notice 2012-20 stated that regulations incorporating the guidance described in that notice will be effective for obligations issued after March 18, 2012. Accordingly, the proposed regulations will generally apply to obligations issued after March 18, 2012. However, taxpayers may apply the rules in section 3 of Notice 2012-20, including the default exception, for obligations issued prior to publication of a Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
Certain IRS regulations, including these, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Sections 163(f) and 149(a) require that certain obligations be in registered form which is satisfied if the obligations are transferable only through a book entry system. The existing regulations under these sections therefore permit issuers to satisfy the registration requirement through a book entry system and describe the arrangements that are necessary for a system to qualify as a book entry system. Certain systems that are now common, however, may not qualify as book entry systems under the existing regulations. Because the proposed regulations merely clarify that these systems are book entry systems, the proposed regulations would not impose a significant economic impact. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small entities.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal authors of these regulations are Spence Hanemann and Diana Imholtz, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products), IRS. However, other personnel from Treasury and the IRS participated in their development.
The IRS notices cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Excise taxes, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, 5f.163-1(b)(2) of the notice of proposed rulemaking (INTL-0115-90, subsequently converted to REG-208245-90) that was published in the
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 5f, and 46 are proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.149(a)-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 149(a)(3).
Section 1.163-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 163(f)(3).
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2)
(A) An obligation issued by a natural person;
(B) An obligation not of a type offered to the public (as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section); or
(C) An obligation that has a maturity at the date of issue of not more than 1 year.
(ii)
(3)
(B)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Fund, a partnership under the laws of the state in which it is organized, acquires a pool of student loans. The student loans are issued by natural persons and, therefore, are not registration-required obligations as described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Fund contributes the student loans to Trust, a business trust under the laws of the state in which Trust is organized. Trust has the power to vary the investments in Trust, and is not treated as a trust of which the grantor is the owner under Subpart E of Part I of Subchapter J of the Code. Trust issues certificates evidencing an interest in Trust. The certificates issued by Trust are offered to the public. The certificates issued by Trust are pass-through certificates (as described in paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of this section) and are described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, and thus, are registration-required obligations described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, even though the student loans held by Trust are not registration-required obligations.
Partnership U purchases a building from Partnership V. Partnership U makes a cash down payment and issues a note secured by a mortgage in the building to Partnership V for the remaining purchase price of the building. The note is not a registration-required obligation described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section because it is not an obligation of a type offered to the public. Partnership V offers participations in the underlying note to the public. Under the terms of the participation, each participant will own an interest in the note that will entitle the participant to a specified portion of the interest and principal generated by the note. The participation is a participation interest described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section and is described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, and, thus, is a registration-required obligation described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, even though the underlying note is not a registration-required obligation.
(4)
(ii)
(5)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(i) By surrender of the old obligation and either the reissuance of the old obligation to the new holder or the issuance of a new obligation to the new holder;
(ii) Through a book entry system (as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section) maintained by the issuer of the obligation (or its agent) or by a clearing organization (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section); or
(iii) Through both of the methods described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(2)
(ii)
(A) The physical certificate is issued to and held by a clearing organization (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) for the benefit of purchasers of interests in the obligation under arrangements that prohibit the transfer of the physical certificate except to a successor clearing organization subject to terms that effectively immobilize the physical certificate, as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, in the hands of the successor clearing organization; and
(B) Ownership of the obligation or an interest in the obligation is transferable only through a book entry system (as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section) maintained by the clearing organization (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section).
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(
(
(B)
(iii)
(5)
X issues an obligation that is a registration-required obligation as described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. At issuance, X issues the obligation in the purchaser's name evidencing the purchaser's ownership of the principal and interest under the obligation. The purchaser may transfer the obligation only by surrendering the obligation to X and by X issuing a new instrument to the new holder. X's obligation is issued in registered form under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Corporation A issues US$500 million of debt (the Note) evidenced by a physical certificate that is registered in the name of ABC, a clearing organization (as defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section). Under the terms of the Note, Corporation A must maintain an electronic register identifying the owners of interests in the Note, and a transfer of the right to receive either principal or any stated interest on such ownership interests may be effected only through a change to the electronic register. Pursuant to an agreement with Corporation A, ABC takes custody of the physical certificate evidencing the Note and receives all principal and interest on the Note from Corporation A. Independently of its agreement with Corporation A, ABC maintains electronic records of its members' ownership interests in the Note and distributes principal and interest to members' accounts in accordance with those interests. ABC's members, in turn, maintain electronic records of their customers' ownership interests in the Note and similarly distribute principal and interest to their customers' accounts. Corporation A's electronic register identifies ABC as the sole owner of the Note. Corporation A does not record transfers of ownership interests in the Note to or among ABC's members, and ABC does not record transfers of ownership interests in the Note to or among its members' customers. Corporation A's electronic register is a book entry system as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, and the Note is in registered form under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
The facts are the same as in
The facts are the same as in
Bank makes a loan to borrower secured by real property (Loan). Participations in Loan are traded on an established market. The participations are participation interests described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section and are accordingly registration-required obligations described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. Bank remains the registered owner of Loan and maintains an electronic book entry system that identifies participants. Participation interests may be transferred only by surrender of the old participation interest and reissuance of the participation interest in the name of the new participant, or by transfer of the participation interest from the name of the old participant to the name of
(6)
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii)
(f)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(d)
(2)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c)
(d)
(ii)
(2)
(j) * * *
(4)
(5)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(d)
(2)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(d)
(d)
26 U.S.C. 7805.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii)
(e)
(2)
United States Mint, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The United States Mint proposes to revise its regulations relating to the exchange of uncurrent, bent, partial, fused, and mixed coins. The proposed revisions include updates to redemption rates and procedures previously proposed in the
Send comments on or before November 3, 2017.
The United States Mint invites comments on all aspects of this proposed revision. You may send comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Sheila Barnett, Legal Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, United States Mint, at (202) 354-7624 or
The Treasury Regulations appearing at 31 CFR part 100, subpart C, are promulgated under 31 U.S.C. 5120, and relate to the exchange of uncurrent, bent, partial, fused, and mixed coins. The last amendment to 31 CFR part 100, subpart C, was on August 23, 1999. Since then, the United States Mint has identified portions of the regulations in need of revision to update redemption rates and procedures, and to enhance the integrity of the acceptance and processing of bent and partial United States coins.
The first category of proposed revisions would update and improve the redemption process of bent and partial coins to enhance security and ensure the integrity of United States coinage. These revisions were not previously proposed. The revisions would establish procedures for certifying participants based on submission amounts and frequency, sampling submissions to authenticate material, conducting site visits for certain participants, and requiring information on how the submission came to be bent or partial. The revisions will also inform submitters of required banking information. Lastly, the revisions would provide the United States Mint discretion to cease processing submissions that appear to be part of an illegal scheme, or contain material that is not identifiable as bent or partial United States coinage.
The second category of proposed revisions, previously proposed in 79 FR 41468, July 16, 2014, relates to the redemption rates for uncurrent coins and bent and partial coins that have been withdrawn from circulation. For uncurrent coins, the revision would clarify the procedure for redemption by instructing the public to deposit the uncurrent coins with a financial institution that will accept them, or with a depository institution that has a direct relationship with a Federal Reserve Bank. The revision would make clear that a Federal Reserve Bank will redeem uncurrent coins based on the policies described in the Federal Reserve's Operating Circular 2.
For bent or partial coins, the proposed revision would update the redemption rates of certain coins to reflect the current values and compositions of coins being redeemed. For example, in the existing regulation, the redemption rate for one-cent coins is $1.4585 per pound; this redemption rate was derived from the weight of brass one-cent coins (3.11 grams or 0.1097 ounces each), which the United States Mint has not minted and issued since 1982. In 1983, the United States Mint began minting and issuing only copper-plated zinc one-cent coins, which weigh 2.50 grams or 0.0882 ounces each. Due to the weight difference, a pound (the minimum weight for redemption) of copper-plated zinc one-cent coins contains a higher quantity of coins than a pound of brass one-cent coins. The proposed revisions would make the redemption rate $1.8100 for a pound consisting solely of copper-plated zinc one-cent coins. For brass one-cent coins, or a mix of both brass and copper-plated zinc one-cent coins, the lower redemption rate of $1.4585 will apply. A similar update would be made to the redemption rate for $1 coins.
The third category of proposed revisions, also previously proposed in 79 FR 41468, July 16, 2014, would clarify that the United States Mint will not accept fused coins. The United States Mint will also not accept mixed coins (coins of several alloy categories presented together) for redemption, with the exception of bent or partial one-cent coins and $1 coins that are presented in mixed years.
The fourth category of proposed revisions puts the public on notice that the Director of the United States Mint may provide information pertaining to any bent or partial coin submission to law enforcement officials or other third parties for purposes of investigating related criminal activity or for purposes of seeking civil judgment. The revisions would also notify potential participants that they may be held criminally and/or civilly liable, fined, and/or imprisoned for fraudulent submissions.
The United States Mint previously proposed updates to redemption rates and procedures in 79 FR 41468, July 16, 2014, and requested comments. The United States Mint received one comment, but it was not responsive to the proposed updates. A final rule was not published.
In 81 FR 75922, Nov. 1, 2016, the United States Mint issued a request for public comment on new ways to enhance the integrity of the acceptance and processing of bent and partial coins. Seventeen comments were received and reviewed. The majority of comments were submitted by individuals or entities that previously exchanged bent or partial coins with the United States Mint.
In general, most comments expressed support for requiring participant certification, particularly for participants submitting large quantities of bent or partial coins. Many comments expressed concern with the cost and feasibility of coinage material authentication but supported sampling or spot testing by the United States Mint.
Many comments supported the suggestion of requiring chain of custody information regarding the bent or partial coin submissions. Comments from stakeholders in the recycling industry, however, discussed the difficulty they face in tracing coins recovered by auto and appliance shredding, and therefore recommended that recyclers be considered the point of origin. Multiple comments noted the importance of documenting the chain of custody of coins that had circulated outside of the United States.
The suggestion of annual limitations on submissions was largely disfavored by those who submitted comments. Many comments described a backlog of bent or partial coins from the suspension of the exchange program and a lack of alternative forums to redeem such coins.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771.
It is hereby certified that the proposed revisions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Before the proposed revisions to the Treasury Regulations at 31 CFR part 100, subpart C, are adopted as final regulations, the United States Mint will consider any comments that are submitted to the bureau as prescribed in this preamble under the “Dates” and “Addresses” headings. The United States Mint and the Department of the Treasury request comments on all aspects of the proposed revisions.
Coins.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the United States Mint proposes to revise 31 CFR part 100, subpart C as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(2) Partial coins are U.S. coins which are not whole; partial coins must be readily and clearly identifiable as to genuineness and denomination.
(3) Participants are individuals or businesses that submit coins through the redemption process.
(c)
(1) Depending on submission amount and frequency, participants may be subject to a certification process by the United States Mint. The established annual weight threshold and details about the participant certification process will be published on the United States Mint's Web site. If certification is required, it must be done prior to submission.
(2) All submissions for review shall include an estimate of the value of the coins and an explanation of how the submission came to be bent or partial. The submission should also contain the bank account number and routing number for a checking or savings account at a bank or other financial institution (such as a mutual fund, brokerage firm, or credit union) in the United States.
(3) Participants may be required to provide documentation for how the participant came into custody of the bent or partial coins.
(4) The United States Mint reserves the right to test samples from any submission to authenticate the material. The size of the sample will be limited to the amount necessary for authentication. Testing may result in partial or complete destruction of the sample.
(5) The United States Mint reserves the right to conduct site visits for participants over a certain volume threshold to verify information provided to the United States Mint.
(6) No redemption will be made when:
(i) A submission, or any portion of a submission, demonstrates a pattern of intentional mutilation or an attempt to defraud the United States;
(ii) A submission appears to be part of, or intended to further, any criminal activity;
(iii) A submission contains a material misrepresentation of facts;
(iv) Material presented is not identifiable as United States coins. In such instances, the participant will be notified to retrieve the entire submission, at the participant's sole expense, within 30 days. If the submission is not retrieved in a timely manner, the entire submission will be treated as voluntarily abandoned property, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-41.80, and will be retained or disposed of by the United States Mint;
(v) A submission contains any contaminant that could render the coins unsuitable for coinage metal. In such instances, the participant will be notified to retrieve the entire submission, at the participant's sole expense, within 30 days. If the submission is not retrieved in a timely manner, the entire submission will be treated as voluntarily abandoned property, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-41.80, and will be retained or disposed of by the United States Mint; or
(vi) A submission contains more than a nominal amount of uncurrent coins. In such instances, the participant may be notified to retrieve the entire submission, at the participant's sole expense, within 30 days. If the submission is not retrieved in a timely manner, the entire submission will be treated as voluntarily abandoned property, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-41.80, and will be retained or disposed of by the United States Mint.
(7) The Director of the United States Mint, or designee, shall have final authority with respect to all aspects of redemptions of bent or partial coin submissions.
(d)
(1)
(i) One-Cent Coins: $1.4585 per pound.
(ii) 5-Cent Coins: $4.5359 per pound.
(iii) Dime, Quarter-Dollar, and Half-Dollar Coins: $20.00 per pound.
(iv) $1 Coins: $20.00 per pound.
(2)
(ii) The United States Mint will redeem $1 coins inscribed with a year after 1978 at the rate set forth at subparagraph (1)(iv) of this subsection unless such $1 coins are presented unmixed from $1 coins inscribed with a year before 1979. The United States Mint will redeem unmixed $1 coins inscribed with a year after 1978 at a rate of $56.00 per pound.
(e)
(1) Bent and partial coins submitted in quantities less than or equal to a threshold established annually will be redeemed only at the United States Mint at Philadelphia, P.O. Box 400, Philadelphia, PA 19105.
(2) Bent and partial coins submitted in quantities greater than a threshold established annually should be scheduled with the United States Mint to be sent directly to the authorized recycler(s) of the United States Mint.
(a)
(2) Mixed coins are U.S. coins of several alloy categories which are presented together, but are readily and clearly identifiable as U.S. coins.
(b) The United States Mint will not accept fused coins for redemption. The United States Mint will not accept mixed coins for redemption, except as provided for in § 100.11(d)(2).
(a) Additional information and procedures about the United States Mint's redemption of bent or partial coins can be found on the United States Mint's Web site.
(b) Criminal penalties connected with the defacement or mutilation of U.S. coins are provided in 18 U.S.C. 331.
(c) The Director of the United States Mint may provide information pertaining to any bent or partial coin submissions to law enforcement officials or other third parties for purposes of investigating related criminal activity or for purposes of seeking a civil judgment.
(d) Whoever intentionally files a false claim seeking reimbursement for uncurrent, bent or partial coins may be held criminally liable under a number of statutes including 18 U.S.C. 287 and 18 U.S.C. 1341 and may be held civilly liable under 31 U.S.C. 3729,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement the measures described in Regulatory Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)(FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would revise the method used to trigger the application of accountability measures (AM) for Council-managed reef fish species or species groups in the Puerto Rico exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purpose of this proposed rule is to increase the likelihood that optimum yield (OY) is achieved on a continuing basis and to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse socio-economic effects of AM-based closures.
Written comments must be received on or before October 19, 2017.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2017-0074” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 6, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Sarah Stephenson, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
In the U.S. Caribbean EEZ, the reef fish fishery is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801
The current AMs in the Puerto Rico EEZ, applicable to Council-managed reef fish species or species groups, require NMFS to reduce the length of the Federal fishing season in the fishing year following a determination that landings for a species or species group exceeded the applicable sector annual catch limit (ACL). As specified in the FMP, the landings determination is based on the applicable 3-year landings average. However, if NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season the following fishing year. The current AM-based closure is triggered and applied when the sector ACL is exceeded, even if the total ACL (
Sector-specific data are not available for other federally managed species in the Puerto Rico EEZ (
This proposed rule would revise the trigger for implementing AM-based fishing season reductions, for all reef fish species or species groups managed by the Council in the Puerto Rico EEZ. Specifically, an AM-based closure would be triggered only when both the applicable sector (recreational or commercial) ACL and the total ACL for a species or species group is exceeded. If both the sector ACL and the total ACL are exceeded, the AM would be applied to the sector or sectors that experienced the overage. The duration of any implemented AM-based closure would continue to be based on the extent to which the applicable sector ACL was exceeded and would be calculated and applied using the current practices and methods. However, consistent with the current regulations, if NMFS determines that either of the applicable ACLs was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, instead of an increase in catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season. For example, if NMFS determines that the applicable sector ACL exceedance for a species or species group is not attributable to enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, but that the total ACL exceedance is attributable to enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, NMFS will not reduce the length of the sector's fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year.
This proposed rule to implement Regulatory Amendment 6 is expected to increase the likelihood that OY is achieved on a continuing basis and to minimize adverse socio-economic effects from the implementation of AMs, while still helping to ensure that AM-based closures constrain harvest to the total ACL and prevent overfishing. Under the current AM regulations, fishing season reductions have been applied in Puerto Rico when a specific fishing sector has exceeded its sector
NMFS notes that in the codified text for this proposed rule, amendatory instruction 2 would revise the entire § 622.12. While the proposed rule only affects management in Puerto Rico Federal waters, the section as a whole is revised as a result of the proposed action to more clearly and distinctly describe the AMs and ACLs throughout the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. The proposed rule would also revise some regulatory citations within § 622.12 and § 622.491 to reflect changes made to the regulatory text as a result of this proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows.
A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the preamble. In summary, this action revises how AMs are triggered for the reef fish fishery in the Puerto Rico EEZ, to increase the likelihood that OY is achieved on a continuing basis and to minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse socio-economic effects of AM-based closures in accordance with the National Standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would directly affect recreational and commercial fishing for reef fish managed by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council in Federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean off Puerto Rico. Anglers (recreational fishers), whether fishing from for-hire, private or leased vessels, are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Therefore, estimates of the number of anglers directly affected by the rule and the impacts on them are not provided here.
NMFS estimates there are 795 commercial fishing businesses in Puerto Rico and the average annual dockside revenue of these businesses is $10,000 each. For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on the average annual revenue for the 795 commercial fishing businesses, it is concluded that all of Puerto Rico's commercial fishing businesses are small. It is unknown how many of these small businesses harvest reef fish in Federal waters; however, it is possible that all 795 of these businesses may be directly affected by the proposed rule.
This action would revise the trigger for implementing AMs for Council-managed reef fish species and species groups in the Puerto Rico EEZ. Currently, if commercial landings of a federally managed reef fish species or species group exceed the commercial ACL for that species or species group, the length of the following year's Federal fishing season for that species or species group is reduced by the amount necessary to ensure commercial landings do not again exceed the commercial ACL, even if the total ACL (the combined commercial and recreational sector ACLs) is not exceeded by combined recreational and commercial landings. That occurred in 2016, for example, when the commercial season for Snapper Unit 2 in Puerto Rico was reduced by 36 days because commercial landings of Snapper Unit 2 had exceeded the pertinent commercial ACL, even though combined commercial and recreational landings of Snapper Unit 2 were less than the total ACL (81 FR 34283, May 31, 2016).
This action would benefit small commercial fishing businesses by reducing the potential adverse economic impact, if any, caused by a reduction in the length of the Federal commercial season required by the current AM. The action changes the trigger for the AMs, potentially reducing the number of AM-based reductions in length of the Federal commercial fishing season, and benefitting those who are negatively affected by such reductions. The actual adverse impact caused by a reduction in the length of a Federal commercial fishing season, is dependent on the extent to which commercial fishing for a species or species group occurs in Federal waters and on the ability of a commercial fishing business to change intensity of effort in anticipation of a possible reduced season in Federal waters; commercial businesses that fish for species in federal waters and are not able to change their behavior in anticipation of Federal commercial fishing season reductions are most impacted by the fishing season reductions and could see the most benefit from changing the AM trigger and reducing the potential for an AM-based fishing season reduction. However, NMFS is unable to provide estimates of the baseline adverse economic impact of shortened fishing seasons caused by the current AM without making assumptions as to the magnitudes of those factors.
However, NMFS estimates that if the 2016 commercial season for Snapper Unit 2 had not closed early and if all additional landings of Snapper Unit 2 were from the commercial sector and from Federal waters, each small business could have landed an additional 28 lb (12.7 kg) of Snapper Unit 2, which would equate to an additional dockside value of $143 per business that year. For a small commercial fishing business that has average annual dockside revenue of $10,000, that maximum benefit would represent a 1.43 percent increase in annual revenue. Therefore, it is concluded that the rule would not have
Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Caribbean, Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(J)
(K)
(L)
(M)
(N)
(O)
(P)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(J)
(K)
(L)
(M)
(N)
(O)
(P)
(iii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(J)
(K)
(L)
(M)
(N)
(O)
(P)
(3)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(3)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(3)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e)
(i) Restrictions applicable after a Puerto Rico commercial closure for reef fish species or species groups. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the commercial sector for species or species groups included in the notification is closed and such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area may not be purchased or sold. Harvest or possession of such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits unless the recreational sector for the species or species group is closed and the restrictions specified in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section apply.
(ii) Restrictions applicable after a Puerto Rico recreational closure for reef fish species or species groups. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the recreational sector for species or species groups included in the notification is closed and the recreational bag and possession limits for such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area are zero. If the seasons for both the commercial and recreational sectors for such species or species groups are closed, the restrictions specified in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section apply.
(iii) Restrictions applicable when both Puerto Rico commercial and Puerto Rico recreational sectors for reef fish species or species groups are closed. If the seasons for both the commercial and recreational sectors for a species or species group are closed, such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits for such species or species groups in or from the Puerto Rico management area are zero.
(iv) Restrictions applicable after a spiny lobster closure in Puerto Rico. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this section, both the commercial and recreational sectors are closed. Spiny lobster in or from the Puerto Rico management area may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits for spiny lobster in or from the Puerto Rico management area are zero.
(2) Restrictions applicable after a St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John, or Caribbean EEZ closure. During the closure period announced in the notification filed pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section, such species or species groups in or from the applicable management area of the Caribbean EEZ may not be harvested, possessed, purchased, or sold, and the bag and possession limits for such species or species groups in or from the applicable management area of the Caribbean EEZ are zero.
(b) Pursuant to the procedures and criteria established in the FMP for Queen Conch Resources in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, when the ACL, as specified in § 622.12(b)(1), is reached or projected to be reached, the Regional Administrator will close the Caribbean EEZ to the harvest and possession of queen conch, in the area east of 64°34′ W. longitude which includes Lang Bank, east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, by filing a notification of closure with the Office of the Federal Register. * * *
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by October 19, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Departmental Management, Department of Agriculture.
Notice and request for comments.
This notice announces the Department of Agriculture, Departmental Management, Office of Procurement and Property Management's intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection, Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement.
Comments on this notice must be received by November 20, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
The Office of Procurement and Property Management invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Karen Zhang, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the intention of the USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, to request approval for an extension of an existing collection.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB (Office of Management and Budget) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of monthly planning meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:30 a.m. (EDT) Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at the offices of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. The purpose of the planning meeting is to discuss and select the topic for the committee's civil rights project.
October 10, 2017.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.
Ivy L. Davis, at
Persons with accessibility needs should contact the Eastern Regional Office no later than 10 working days before the scheduled meeting by sending an email to the following email address at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by November 13, 2017. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Blaine Wiltse or Manuel Rey, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-5518, respectively.
On September 5, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India for the period of review February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. However, that document contained an incorrect list of companies covered by the review. This notice provides the correct list of company names.
We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:
This correction to the final results of administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments.
Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Carrie Hubard (File No. 16325-01, 19425-01, and 19655) and Erin Markin (File No. 20315) at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.
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 20, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Vernon Shoemaker, (907) 586-7228.
This request is for a revision/extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 16 U.S.C. 1801
Vessels required to have a Federal Fisheries Permit are issued free daily fishing logbooks (DFLs) for harvesters and daily cumulative production logbooks (DCPL) for processors to record groundfish, Crab Rationalization Program crab, Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) halibut, IFQ sablefish, Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program halibut, and prohibited species catch information. Catcher vessels under 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall are not required to maintain DFLs. Multiple self-copy logsheets within each logbook are available for distribution to the harvester, processor, observer program, and NOAA Office for Law Enforcement. The longline or pot gear logbooks have an additional logsheet for submittal to the IPHC.
As electronic logbooks become available, paper logbooks are discontinued and removed from this collection. The forms and DFL and DCPL logsheets may be viewed on the NMFS Alaska Region Home Page at
In addition to the logbooks, this collection includes the check-in/check-out reports for shoreside processors and motherships, the product transfer report, and the U.S. vessel activity report.
The information collection currently approved under OMB Control Number
Paper logbooks and paper and electronic reports are required from participants. Methods of submittal include mail, Internet, and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
The notification from the City Manager of Adak and the City Administrator of Atka of their city's intent to process Pacific cod must be submitted by certified mail through the United States Postal Service.
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; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) renewal application from the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation (CFRF) contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This permit would exempt participating commercial fishing vessels from Federal lobster escape vent, trap limit, and trap tag regulations, as well as restrictions on temporary possession of egg-bearing and v-notched female and sublegal-sized juvenile lobsters, to facilitate research on the abundance and distribution of juvenile American lobster and Jonah crab along the northwest Atlantic coast. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before October 4, 2017.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9180,
The Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation submitted a complete application to renew an existing Exempted Fishing Permit on August 10, 2017, to conduct fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. The EFP would authorize 18 vessels to conduct a study using ventless traps to survey the abundance and distribution of juvenile American lobster and Jonah crab in regions and times of year not covered by traditional surveys. Overall, this EFP proposes to use a total of 54 ventless lobster traps throughout lobster management areas 2, 3, 4, and 5; covering statistical areas 514, 515, 521, 522, 525, 526, 533, 534, 537, 538, 539, 541, 542, 543, 561, 562, 613, 615, 616, 622, 623, 624, 626, 627, 628, 629, 632, 633, 634, 636, 637, 638, and 640. Maps depicting these areas are available on request. The study is designed to aid and inform management by addressing the questions of changing reproduction and recruitment dynamics of lobster, and developing a foundation of knowledge for the emergent Jonah crab fishery.
Funding for this study has been awarded through the Campbell Foundation and the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grants Program (Grant #NA17NMF4270208). For this research, CFRF is requesting exemptions from the following Federal lobster regulations:
1. Gear specification requirements in 50 CFR 697.21(c) to allow for closed escape vents and smaller trap mesh and entrance heads;
2. Trap limit requirements, as listed in § 697.19, for areas 2, 3, 4 and 5, to be exceeded by 3 additional traps per fishing vessel for a total of 54 additional traps;
3. Trap tag requirements, as specified in § 697.19(j), to allow for the use of untagged traps (though each
4. Possession restrictions in §§ 697.20(a), 697.20(d), and 697.20(g) to allow for temporary possession of juvenile, v-notched, and egg-bearing lobsters for onboard biological sampling.
If the EFP is approved, this research would take place during the regular fishing activity of the participating 18 federally permitted commercial fishing vessels: 6 “inshore” vessels in lobster management area 2 and 12 “offshore” vessels in lobster management areas 3, 4, and 5. Each participating vessel would have up to three modified traps attached to a standard, Atlantic Large Whale-compliant trap trawl. No more than 54 total modified traps would be in the water at any time. Modifications to conventional lobster traps used in this study include a closed escape vents, single parlors, and smaller mesh sizes and entrance heads, all to allow for the capture of juvenile lobsters and Jonah crabs. Sampling would occur during regular fishing activity on each vessel weekly in area 2, and every 10 days in the other areas.
During sampling, all lobsters and Jonah crabs will be counted, sexed, and measured. Other biological information will be recorded on both lobster and Jonah crab catch, including shell hardness and presence of eggs. The possession exemptions are required to temporarily hold catch onboard for biological sampling before animals are promptly returned to the sea. No catch of any species from experimental traps will be landed for sale. All data collected will be made available to state and Federal management agencies to improve and enhance the available data for these two crustacean species.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study period. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
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 20, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Stephanie Warpinski, (907) 586-7228.
This request is for revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program to improve the long-term productivity of the sablefish and Pacific halibut fisheries by further promoting the conservation and management objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The IFQ Program also includes other restrictions to prevent the halibut and sablefish fisheries from domination by large boats or by any particular vessel class. NMFS designed the requirements to maintain a predominantly owner-operated fishery, which was a key characteristic of the halibut and sablefish fisheries prior to the implementation of the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program provides each fisherman an IFQ that can be used any time during the open season to allow each fisherman to set his/her own pace and fishing effort.
Under the IFQ Program, quota share (QS) represents a harvesting privilege for a person. Annually, NMFS issues IFQ to QS holders to harvest specified poundage. The specific amount of IFQ held by a person is determined by the number of QS units held, the total number of QS units issued in a specific regulatory area, and the total pounds of sablefish or halibut allocated for the IFQ fisheries in a particular year. Fishermen may harvest the IFQ over the entire fishing season, which extends approximately from March through November 15.
The IFQ Manual Landing Report form will be removed from this information collection. This form is approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS)) and will remain in that collection.
“Fillable” forms and applications are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (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.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Publishing the new 12-month cap on duty- and quota-free benefits.
Applicable October 1, 2017.
Maria D'Andrea-Yothers, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-1550.
Title I of TDA 2000 provides for duty- and quota-free treatment for certain textile and apparel articles imported from designated beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
Section 112(b)(3) of TDA 2000 provides duty- and quota-free treatment for apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from yarn originating in the United States or one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.
This preferential treatment is also available for apparel articles assembled in one or more lesser-developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, regardless of the country of origin of the fabric used to make such articles, subject to quantitative limitation. Public Law 114-27 extended this special rule for lesser-developed countries through September 30, 2025.
The AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004 provides that the quantitative limitation for the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 2017 will be an amount not to exceed 7 percent of the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States in the preceding 12-month period for which data are available.
For the one-year period, beginning on October 1, 2017, and extending through September 30, 2018, the aggregate quantity of imports eligible for preferential treatment under these provisions is 2,022,822,376 square meters equivalent. Of this amount, 1,011,411,188 square meters equivalent is available to apparel articles imported under the special rule for lesser-developed countries. Apparel articles entered in excess of these quantities will be subject to otherwise applicable tariffs.
These quantities are calculated using the aggregate square meter equivalents of all apparel articles imported into the United States, derived from the set of Harmonized System lines listed in the Annex to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), and the conversion factors for units of measure into square meter equivalents used by the United States in implementing the ATC.
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
Notice.
This notice sets forth the names and titles of the current membership of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) Performance Review Board as of October 1, 2017.
Individual Offices of Inspectors General at the telephone numbers listed below.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, created the Offices of Inspectors General as independent and
Under 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1)-(5), and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, each agency is required to establish one or more Senior Executive Service (SES) performance review boards. The purpose of these boards is to review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive. The current members of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Performance Review Board, as of October 1, 2017, are as follows:
Daniel Altman—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Lisa McClennon—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Thomas Yatsco—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Melinda Dempsey—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Alvin A. Brown—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Aracely Nunez-Mattocks—Assistant Inspector General for Management.
Jason Carroll—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management.
David R. Gray—Deputy Inspector General.
Christy A. Slamowitz—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Gilroy Harden—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Steven H. Rickrode, Jr.—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Yarisis Rivera Rojas—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Ann M. Coffey—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Peter P. Paradis, Sr.—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.
Lane M. Timm—Assistant Inspector General for Management.
Lisa Fleming—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management.
David Smith—Deputy Inspector General.
Ann Eilers—Assistant Inspector General for Administration.
Allen Crawley—Assistant Inspector General for Systems Acquisition and IT Security.
Mark Greenblatt—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Andrew Katsaros—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
E. Wade Green—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Richard Bachman—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Carol Rice—Assistant Inspector General for Economic and Statistical Program Assessment.
Mark Zabarsky—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Daniel R. Blair—Deputy Chief of Staff.
Michael S. Child, Sr.—Deputy Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations.
Carol N. Gorman—Assistant Inspector General for Readiness and Cyber Operations.
Carolyn R. Hantz—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Policy and Oversight.
Glenn A. Fine—Principal Deputy Inspector General.
Janice M. Flores—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Internal Operations.
Marguerite C. Garrison—Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations.
Kelly P. Mayo—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Troy M. Meyer—Principal Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Kenneth P. Moorefield—Deputy Inspector General for Special Plans and Operations.
Dermot F. O'Reilly—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.
Michael J. Roark—Assistant Inspector General for Contract Management and Payment.
Henry C. Shelley, Jr.—General Counsel.
Steven A. Stebbins—Chief of Staff.
Randolph R. Stone—Deputy Inspector General for Policy and Oversight.
Anthony C. Thomas—Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence and Special Program Assessments.
Lorin T. Venable—Assistant Inspector General for Financial Management and Reporting.
Jacqueline L. Wicecarver—Deputy Inspector General for Audit.
David Morris—Assistant Inspector General for Management Services.
Patrick Howard—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Bryon Gordon—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Aaron Jordan—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Mark Smith—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Charles Coe—Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits and Computer Crime Investigations.
Marta Erceg—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Michelle Anderson—Deputy Inspector General for Audits and Inspections.
John Dupuy—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.
Sarah Nelson—Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Administration.
Tara Porter—Assistant Inspector General for Management and Administration.
Virginia Grebasch—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Jack Rouch—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Debra Solmonson—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Inspections.
Charles Sheehan—Deputy Inspector General.
Patrick Sullivan—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Carolyn Copper—Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation.
Alan Larsen—Counsel to the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Affairs.
Kevin Christensen—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Dana Rooney—Inspector General.
Jon Hatfield—Inspector General.
Roslyn A. Mazer—Inspector General.
Robert C. Erickson—Deputy Inspector General.
R. Nicholas Goco—Assistant Inspector General for Auditing.
Barbara Bouldin—Deputy Assistant IG for Acquisition Program Audits.
James E. Adams—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Stephanie E. Burgoyne—Assistant Inspector General for Administration.
Larry L. Gregg—Associate Inspector General.
Patricia D. Sheehan—Assistant Inspector General for Inspections.
Joanne Chiedi—Principal Deputy Inspector General.
Christi Grimm—Chief of Staff.
Robert Owens, Jr.—Deputy Inspector General for Management and Policy.
Caryl Brzymialkiewicz—Assistant Inspector General/Chief Data Officer.
Chris Chilbert—Assistant Inspector General/Chief Information Officer.
Theresa Kohler—Assistant Inspector General/Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
Gary Cantrell—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.
Les Hollie—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Thomas O'Donnell—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Tyler Smith—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Suzanne Murrin—Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.
Erin Bliss—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.
Ann Maxwell—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.
Gregory Demske—Chief Counsel to the Inspector General.
Robert DeConti—Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs.
Lisa Re—Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs.
Gloria Jarmon—Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services.
Amy Frontz—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services.
Carrie Hug—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services.
Brian Ritchie—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Services.
John Kelly—Deputy Inspector General.
Laurel Rimon—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Donald Bumgardner—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Maureen Duddy—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Erica Paulson—Assistant Inspector General for External Affairs.
Sondra McCauley—Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits.
Jennifer Costello—Assistant Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluation.
Andrew Oosterbaan—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Michele Kennedy—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.
Dennis McGunagle—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.
John E. McCoy II—Assistant Inspector General for Integrity and Quality Oversight.
Louise M. McGlathery—Assistant Inspector General for Management.
James P. Gaughran—Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman.
Nicholas Padilla—Assistant Inspector General for Investigation.
Robert Kwalwasser—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigation.
Frank Rokosz—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
John Buck—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Kimberly Randall—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Laura Farrior—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management.
Christopher Webber—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology.
Jeremy Kirkland—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Brian Pattison—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation.
Mary Kendall, Deputy Inspector General (Acting).
Steve Hardgrove—Chief of Staff.
Kimberly McGovern—Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Inspections and Evaluations.
Matthew Elliott—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Bruce Delaplaine—General Counsel.
Roderick Anderson—Assistant Inspector General for Management.
Robert P. Storch—Deputy Inspector General.
William M. Blier—General Counsel.
Daniel C. Beckhard—Assistant Inspector General for Oversight and Review.
Michael Sean O'Neill—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Oversight and Review.
Jason R. Malmstrom—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Mark L. Hayes—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Eric A. Johnson—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Margaret Elise Chawaga—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Nina S. Pelletier—Assistant Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections.
Gregory T. Peters—Assistant Inspector General for Management and Planning.
Cynthia Lowell—Deputy Assistant Inspector for Management and Planning.
Larry D. Turner—Deputy Inspector General.
Delores Thompson—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Elliot P. Lewis—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Debra D. Pettitt—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Cheryl Garcia—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations—Labor Racketeering and Fraud.
Leia Burks—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations—Labor Racketeering and Fraud.
Thomas D. Williams—Assistant Inspector General for Management and Policy.
Charles Sabatos—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management and Policy.
Jessica Southwell—Chief Performance and Risk Management Officer.
Luiz A. Santos—Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Relations.
Gail A. Robinson—Deputy Inspector General.
Frank LaRocca—Counsel to the Inspector General.
James R. Ives—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
James L. Morrison—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Ross W. Weiland—Assistant Inspector General for Management Planning.
Jewel Butler—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Jason Metrick—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
David P. Berry—Inspector General.
Alan Boehm—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Kenneth Chason—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Mark Bell—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
David C. Lee—Deputy Inspector General.
Joseph A. McMillan—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Brett M. Baker—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Norbert E. Vint—Acting Inspector General.
J. David Cope—Acting Deputy Inspector General.
James L. Ropelewski—Assistant Inspector General for Management.
Drew M. Grimm—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Michael R. Esser—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Melissa D. Brown—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Lewis F. Parker—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Gopala Seelamneni—Chief Information Technology Officer.
Kathy Buller—Inspector General (Foreign Service).
Elizabeth Martin—General Counsel.
Gladis Griffith—Deputy General Counsel.
Mark Duda—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
David Montoya—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Patricia A. Marshall—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Heather Dunahoo—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Louis Rossignuolo—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Hannibal M. Ware—Acting Inspector General (Deputy Inspector General).
Mark P. Hines—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Robert F. Fisher—Assistant Inspector General for Management and Administration.
Gale Stallworth Stone—Deputy Inspector General/Acting Inspector General.
Steven L. Schaeffer—Chief of Staff.
Rona Lawson—Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Kimberly Byrd—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit.
Joseph Gangloff—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Michael Robinson—Senior Advisor to the Inspector General for Law Enforcement.
Robby Childress—Acting Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Jennifer Walker—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Kelly Bloyer—Assistant Inspector General for Communications and Resource Management.
Joscelyn Funnie—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Communications and Resource Management.
Christopher Bosland—Assistant Special Inspector General, Audit and Evaluations.
Emilia DiSanto—Deputy Inspector General.
Michael H. Mobbs—General Counsel.
Norman P. Brown—Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Sandra J. Lewis—Assistant Inspector General for Inspections.
Michael T. Ryan—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Karen J. Ouzts—Assistant Inspector General for Management.
Kevin S. Donohue—Deputy General Counsel.
Gayle L. Voshell—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits.
Tinh T. Nguyen—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Middle East Region Operations.
Lisa R. Rodely—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Inspections.
Cathy D. Alix—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Management.
Mitchell L. Behm—Deputy Inspector General.
Brian A. Dettelbach—Assistant Inspector General for Legal, Legislative, and External Affairs.
Dr. Eileen Ennis—Assistant Inspector General for Administration and Management.
Michelle T. McVicker—Principal Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Max Smith—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Joseph W. Comé—Principal Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and Evaluation.
Charles A. Ward—Assistant Inspector General for Audit Operations and Special Reviews.
Matthew E. Hampton—Assistant Inspector General for Aviation Audits.
Barry DeWeese—Assistant Inspector General for Surface Transportation Audits.
Louis C. King—Assistant Inspector General for Financial and Information Technology Audits.
Mary Kay Langan-Feirson—Assistant Inspector General for Acquisition and Procurement Audits.
Richard K. Delmar—Counsel to the Inspector General.
Tricia L. Hollis—Assistant Inspector General for Management.
John L. Phillips—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Jerry S. Marshall—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Pauletta Battle—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Financial Management and Transparency Audits.
Donna F. Joseph—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Cyber and Financial Assistance Audits.
Lisa A. Carter—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Financial Sector Audits.
Timothy Camus—Deputy Inspector General for Investigations.
Michael McKenney—Deputy Inspector General for Audit.
Russell Martin—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Returns Processing & Account Services).
Danny Verneuille—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Security and Information Technology).
Nancy LaManna—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Management Planning and Workforce Development).
Greg Kutz—Acting Deputy Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations/Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Management Services & Exempt Organizations).
Matthew Weir—Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Compliance and Enforcement Operations).
James Jackson—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Randy Silvis—Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
Gladys Hernandez—Chief Counsel.
George Jakabcin—Chief Information Officer.
Thomas Carter—Deputy Chief Counsel.
Roy Fredrikson—Deputy Counselor to the Inspector General.
Brent Arronte—Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations.
John D. Daigh—Assistant Inspector General for Healthcare Inspections.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.
The meetings will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, September 20 through 21, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on each day. For entrance into the meeting, you must submit your name to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) no later than September 19, 2017.
Teleconference and direct connect information will be provided by the DFO and support staff at the contact information in this notice.
1550 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Visitors must provide an ID to the receptionist, and she will provide a badge for entrance.
LTC Robert L. McDonald Jr., Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3090 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3090, email:
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Government-Industry Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification concerning its meeting on September 20 through 21, 2017, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC McDonald, the committee DFO, or Mr. Nash at the email address or telephone number listed in the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 19, 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 NCES Information Collections at
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.
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), 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 20, 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 Erica Lee, 202-260-1463.
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
This analysis will rely on three types of data sources:
• Telephone interviews. One-on-one phone interviews will be conducted with 76 individuals including: Faculty and college administrators from states' two-year and four-year institutions of higher education; state higher education administrators; representatives from higher education governing bodies and ECE licensure bodies; and other individuals who are knowledgeable about development, implementation, and monitoring of ECE articulation policies and the ECE workforce.
• Focus groups. Virtual focus groups will be held in each of the six states, including student focus groups (with 24 students total) and focus groups of institutional support staff (with 20 staff total).
• Review of extant documents. These documents will include articulation policies, legislation, and governing body meeting notes.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the 4.348-megawatt Menominee and Park Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2744-043) and has prepared a single environmental assessment (EA). The project consists of two developments (Menominee and Park Mill) located on the Menominee River in Menominee County, Michigan, and Marinette County, Wisconsin.
In the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and concludes that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Chelsea Hudock at (202) 502-8448 or by email at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that during the month of August 2017, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017).
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 3, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
On or about August 25, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make available for public comment two draft documents titled,
Comments should be received on or before October 18, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0566, to the
Dr. Nicole Hagan, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-3153; fax number: 919-541-5315; email:
• Identify the notice by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternative and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumption and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is to list those air pollutants that in his “judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”; “the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources”; and “for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air quality criteria . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)(A)-(C)). Air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .” (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(2)). Under section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an independent scientific review committee “shall complete a review of the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any new . . . standards and revisions of the existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate. . . .” Since the early 1980s, this independent review function has been performed by the Clean Air
Presently, the EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and primary NAAQS for SO
The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of these draft documents at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. Information about this public meeting, including the dates and location, will be published as a separate notice in the
The draft documents briefly described above do not represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination. The EPA will consider any public comments submitted in response to this notice when revising the documents.
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 Technical Bulletin 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 October 13, 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.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the
Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or email:
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
By Public Notice released May 18, 2017. The Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Adopt Filing Requirements for the Transition Progress Report Form by Stations That Are Not Eligible for Reimbursement from the TV Broadcast Relocation Fund, MB Docket No. 16-306, Public Notice, DA 17-484 (rel. May 18, 2017) (referred to collectively with Public Notice cited above as Transition Progress Report Public Notices). We concluded that Non-Reimbursable Stations will be required to file Transition Progress Reports following the filing procedures adopted for Reimbursable Stations.
The Commission received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for FCC Form 2100, Schedule 387 (Transition Progress Report) on September 11, 2017.
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 20, 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.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
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 4, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 13, 2017.
1.
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to engage in lending activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1).
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors.
1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the “Leveraging the Emerging Field of Disaster Citizen Science to Enhance Community Resilience to Improve Disaster Response” project. This project will include individual and group interviews of citizen scientists and their partners and will field a nationally representative survey of local health departments to understand experiences and perceptions of citizen science for disaster preparedness.
Written comments must be received on or before November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0066 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Leveraging the Emerging Field of Disaster Citizen Science to Enhance Community Resilience to Improve Disaster Response—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
OPHPR's mission is to safeguard health and save lives by providing a platform for public health preparedness and emergency response. As part of its role, OPHPR funds applied research to improve the ability of CDC and its partners, including but not limited to state and local health departments, emergency management organizations, and health care entities, to effectively prepare for and respond to public health emergencies and disasters. The proposed information collection project is in accordance with OPHPR's mission.
OPHPR requests approval of a new information collection to learn about how the emerging field of disaster citizen science can enhance community resilience for a period of one year. This (mixed methods) information collection uses interviews and a cross-sectional survey. Researchers aim to: (1) Explore the potential of disaster citizen science for increasing community resilience, enhancing participation in preparedness and response activities, and improving preparedness efforts; and (2) provide evidence to inform the development of educational and instructional tools for communities and health departments to navigate the emerging field of disaster citizen science and promote collaborations. CDC will use the insights gained from this information collection to inform the development of guidance
Citizen science is defined as research activities (
This is an exploratory study and is the first of its kind to explore the growing phenomenon of disaster citizen science. Disaster citizen science is a rapidly growing field that is the focus of policy interest, but currently devoid of research. This study will generate information that can help define the phenomenon of disaster citizen science and may result in nationally representative baseline data that can support changes in citizen science awareness, barriers, and activities.
While interviews will be hypothesis generating and provide rich data on the experiences with citizen science to date across all stakeholders active in this enterprise, the nationally-representative survey data will allow us to generalize findings to the full population of LHDs in the U.S.
CDC will collaborate with a contractor to implement this project. Researchers will target citizen scientists and their partners (
The researchers aim to conduct 35-55 individual and group facilitated semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately 60 minutes, to cover topics including benefits and uses of citizen science, barriers to and facilitators of citizen science, and strengths and limitations of citizen science activities and resources. Researchers will identify potential interview participants through literature reviews and snowball sampling in a phased approach starting with citizen science and LHD organizations. Researchers will sample for maximum variation in order to capture the full range of citizen scientist and health department experiences on this topic.
For the survey, the researchers will target a nationally representative sample of 600 local health officials and will apply survey weights to ensure that findings have external validity and can be generalized to LHDs in the U.S. The survey, which will take 30 minutes to complete, will include questions on both citizen science as applied to disaster preparedness and response, and citizen science as occurring in other contexts (such as environmental health)to draw lessons for preparedness and response.
OPHPR anticipates that the knowledge resulting from this research project will contribute significantly to the evidence base for preparedness and response and lead to improved efficiency, effectiveness, and outcomes in several domains.
Participation in this study is voluntary. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. A summary of annualized burden hours is below.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
The United States exports a large volume and variety of foods in international trade. For certain food products, foreign governments may require assurances from the responsible authority of the country of origin of an imported food product that the manufacturer/processor of the food
In August 2011, China's State General Administration of the People's Republic of China for Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ) published the “Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Manufacturers,” known as AQSIQ Decree 145 (
Under the China MOU, FDA intends to establish and maintain lists that identify U.S. manufacturers/processors that have expressed interest to FDA in exporting milk and milk products, seafood, infant formula, and/or formula for young children to China; are subject to our jurisdiction; and have been found by FDA to be in good regulatory standing with FDA, including a finding by FDA that, during the most recent facility inspection, the manufacturers/processors have been found to be in substantial compliance with all applicable FDA regulations, including, but not limited to, current good manufacturing practice requirements for the identified products for export to China. Further, the China MOU provides for FDA to receive evidence that the manufacturer/processor has been certified by a third-party certification body—as acknowledged by CNCA—to meet the relevant standards, laws, and regulations of China for the identified food products for export to China. On June 28, 2017, FDA issued a guidance document entitled, “Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Milk and Milk Product, Seafood, Infant Formula, and Formula for Young Children Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in Exporting to China: Guidance for Industry” which can be found at
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.13, FDA requested emergency review and approval of the collections of information found in the guidance document. The routine course of approval would have delayed our ability to collect the information from firms and, thus, would have been disruptive in our efforts to facilitate exports of food in compliance with requirements established by China in AQSIQ Decree 145. OMB granted the approval under emergency clearance procedures on June 27, 2017.
FDA uses the information submitted by manufacturers/processors to consider them for inclusion on FDA's lists of eligible manufacturers/processors that may ship food products to China, which we maintain. Updates to the FDA lists are sent to CNCA, which publishes quarterly its version of the information in the FDA lists on China's Web site (
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burden for this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval. Based on our experience maintaining other export lists, we estimate that, annually, an average of 370 new manufacturers/processors will submit written requests to be placed on the China lists. The estimate of the number of hours that it will take a
To be placed on a list, manufacturers/processors should provide FDA with evidence that they have obtained third-party certification from a CNCA-acknowledged certifier that the manufacturer/processor complies with the standards, laws, and regulations of China according to relevant requirements specified in AQSIQ Decree 145. Based on our experience with other certification programs, FDA estimates that it will take each new manufacturer/processor about 21 hours to complete the third-party certification process for a total of 7,770 burden hours (370 manufacturers/processors × 21 hours).
Under the guidance, every 2 years each manufacturer/processor on the lists must provide updated information in order to remain on the lists. FDA estimates that each year approximately half of the manufacturers/processors on the lists, or 555 manufacturers/processors (1,110 manufacturers/processors × 0.5 = 555), will resubmit the information to remain on the lists. We estimate that a manufacturer/processor already on the lists will require 1 hour to biennially update and resubmit the information to FDA, including time reviewing the information and corresponding with FDA, for a total of 555 hours.
During the biennial update, manufacturers/processors also need to be recertified by a third-party certifier to remain on the lists. FDA estimates that each year approximately half of the manufacturers/processors on the lists, 555 manufacturers/processors (1,110 manufacturers/processors × 0.5 = 555), will get recertified. We estimate that it will take each manufacturer/processor about 21 hours to complete the certification process for a total of 11,655 burden hours (555 manufacturers/processors × 21 hours).
FDA expects that, each year, approximately 100 manufacturers/processors will need to submit an occasional update and each manufacturer/processor will require 0.5 hours to prepare a communication to FDA reporting the change, for a total of 50 hours.
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 19, 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
Jonalynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The health risks associated with the use of cigarettes can be significant and far-reaching. In 2009, Congress enacted the Tobacco Control Act (TCA) (Pub. L. 111-31), which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to grant FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section 201 of the Tobacco Control Act amends section 4 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) (15 U.S.C. 1333) to require FDA to issue “regulations that require color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the label statements specified in subsection (a)(1).” Section 202(b) of the Tobacco Control Act further amends section 4 of the FCLAA by adding that the Secretary, through notice and comment rulemaking, may adjust the “text of any of the label requirements . . . . if the Secretary finds that such a change would promote greater public understanding of the risks associated with the use of tobacco products.”
In the
As currently proposed, this Experimental Study on Warning Statements for Cigarette Graphic Health Warnings is a voluntary online
• WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive.
• WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause cancer.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease.
• WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.
• WARNING: Smoking can kill you.
• WARNING: Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers.
• WARNING: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.
Participants randomized to 1 of the 16 experimental conditions will view 8 of the warning statements listed in section 4(a)(1) of FCLAA (first bulleted list in this document) plus 1 revised warning statement. The revised warning statements being tested in this proposed study are:
• WARNING: Smoking causes mouth and throat cancer.
• WARNING: Smoking causes head and neck cancer.
• WARNING: Smoking causes bladder cancer, which can lead to bloody urine.
• WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy causes premature birth.
• WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy stunts fetal growth.
• WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy causes premature birth and low birth weight.
• WARNING: Secondhand smoke causes respiratory illnesses in children, like pneumonia.
• WARNING: Smoking can cause heart disease and strokes by clogging arteries.
• WARNING: Smoking causes COPD, a lung disease that can be fatal.
• WARNING: Smoking causes serious lung diseases like emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
• WARNING: Smoking reduces blood flow, which can cause erectile dysfunction.
• WARNING: Smoking reduces blood flow to the limbs, which can require amputation.
• WARNING: Smoking causes type 2 diabetes, which raises blood sugar.
• WARNING: Smoking causes age-related macular degeneration, which can lead to blindness.
• WARNING: Smoking causes cataracts, which can lead to blindness.
In all conditions, after viewing each statement, participants will respond to a small number of questions about that specific statement (Section A in the questionnaire). After viewing the nine statements per their condition, participants will respond to a larger set of questions (Section B in the questionnaire). Next, participants in the experimental conditions will view an additional nine revised warning statements, drawn from the revised statements listed in this document, and respond to an additional set of questions (Section C in the questionnaire). Primary study outcomes include knowledge of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking. Prior to the main data collection, 2 pretests, each with 50 participants, will take place to ensure correct programming and to identify any issues with the proposed study design and implementation.
In the
(Comment) Three comments suggested that the textual warning statements should be evaluated together with accompanying images because the impact of the final cigarette graphic warning labels will be a combination of the effects of both the text and images.
(Response) FDA declines to make this change at this time. This current phase of the research, which includes the study proposed here, is an effort by FDA to collect data concerning revised textual warning statements that may later be used with new images as part of cigarette graphic health warnings. In the future, FDA will conduct research pairing warning statements with images.
(Comment) One comment suggested using a longitudinal study design to understand the long-term effects of the warning statements.
(Response) FDA declines to make this change. A longitudinal study, while providing useful data, is beyond the scope of the research questions being addressed in the present study.
(Comment) One comment recommended FDA use a baseline assessment of understanding of risks associated with cigarette smoking in the form of a pre-exposure assessment of current awareness of negative health outcomes associated with cigarette smoking to evaluate respondents' baseline knowledge.
(Response) FDA declines to make this change. The measurement of baseline level of understanding of risk should be evenly distributed throughout the conditions due to the randomized nature of the experiment.
(Comment) One comment suggested that FDA implement prescreening measures and collect information about the study respondents.
(Response) Prior to randomization to condition, FDA will implement a screener to collect information about potential study participants to confirm eligibility. A copy of the screener is part of the overall package submitted to OMB for review through the public Web site
(Comment) Two comments suggested that FDA change the control group of warning statements to which the revised textual warning statements would be compared in this study.
(Response) FDA declines to make this change. The purpose of the proposed study is to test if the revised textual warning statements promote greater public understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking compared to the warnings enumerated in the TCA. Therefore, the
(Comment) One comment questioned whether the use of an Internet panel is the most appropriate method for obtaining the desired information in this study, as compared to in-person interviews.
(Response) With respect to the sample, the large heterogeneous sample that can be obtained through the Internet panel will allow FDA to test outcomes across a range of individuals, thus strengthening the conclusions and generalizability of the study.
(Comment) Two comments suggested that the timing of the administration of Section B of the questionnaire (administered after viewing eight TCA warnings with one revised warning, but before viewing a second set of nine revised warnings) could introduce bias. One of those comments also suggested FDA remove Section B.
(Response) FDA declines to make such a change at this time. Section B includes the primary outcome measures necessary to assess participants' understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking as described in the revised warning statements compared to the TCA statements. Further, knowledge gained from exposure to questions in Section B is expected to be minimal and consistent across conditions. Therefore, any such knowledge gained from exposure to Section B would suggest that any differences found between conditions are robust.
(Comment) One comment recommended that FDA conduct a power analysis to ensure the sample size is adequate for detecting the expected effect size.
(Response) FDA agrees that it is important to conduct a power analysis; the Agency did conduct a power analysis to ensure the sample size is appropriate for the proposed study.
(Comment) One comment expressed a desire to see the questionnaire to be used in the study as well as an explanation of the study design.
(Response) FDA notes that the questionnaire and supporting statements outlining the study design and methods were available as supporting documents in the docket for public review during the public comment period. Additionally, the study is described in detail as part of the overall package submitted to OMB for review through the public Web site
(Comment) Many comments focused on the content of the revised textual warning statements in the proposed study, and provided suggestions for changes to the wording of the warning statements and additional topics on which they should focus.
(Response) The topics being tested in this proposed study include a wide range of health conditions caused by cigarette smoking and are presented with as much information as practicable. The revised warning statements were developed based on opportunities to promote greater public understanding about the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking. In addition, prior to the proposed study, the warning statements have been tested with consumers; vetted by medical and other scientific experts; and revised to ensure that they clearly and understandably convey factual information about the negative health consequences associated with the use of cigarettes. Based on comments about the content of the revised textual warning statements and FDA's ongoing preparation for the proposed study, FDA is changing the warning statement “WARNING: Smoking raises blood sugar, which can cause type 2 diabetes” to “WARNING: Smoking causes type 2 diabetes, which raises blood sugar.” This change was made to better reflect the causal link between cigarette smoking and diabetes and to clarify that higher blood sugar is a result, not a cause, of diabetes. FDA has updated the questionnaire accordingly.
(Comment) One comment suggested that FDA conduct a “meaningful pretest” for the questionnaire.
(Response) As explained in the draft supporting statements included in the docket, the purpose of the pretests is to help ensure understandability of the questionnaire, to reduce participant burden, and to enhance interview administration. The questionnaire uses slightly modified versions of scales and instruments that have already been thoroughly tested and used in previous research.
(Comment) Many comments suggested changes to or addition of specific constructs as study outcomes or suggested how FDA should use the outcomes already included in the study. Measures suggested for FDA consideration included the following: How much the warning statements attract attention; how novel they are; personal identification with the statements; levels of emotion evoked/emotional appeal or emotional reaction; perceived risk or likelihood of the outcome occurring; and perceived effectiveness of the revised warning statements.
(Response) FDA declines to make such changes to the outcome measures, although FDA notes that the questionnaire already includes items assessing perceived effectiveness of the warnings. The purpose of this study is to assess whether potential textual warning statements, which have been revised from those enumerated in section 4 of FCLAA, promote greater understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking, and the proposed outcome measures focus on just such an evaluation. Therefore, the suggested outcome measures do not contribute to the evaluation of whether the revised warning statements improve public understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking.
(Comment) One comment noted that the study does not include information that would assist in the design of the graphic images.
(Response) FDA agrees that the proposed study does not include these outcomes, and the Agency declines to make such a change. The focus of this study is on the textual warning statements only to assess whether they promote greater understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking and not the design of the graphic images.
(Comment) Two comments stated that FDA was including measures of risk perception and suggested that FDA include additional risk perception measures, such as likelihood of the outcome; measures of absolute and comparative perceived risk; and perceptions of these risks over and above any “background” risk and other similar outcomes.
(Response) FDA declines to make such changes because this study does not aim to measure risk perceptions. The measures included in this proposed study assess knowledge and understanding of a negative health outcome caused by cigarette smoking. The goal of these measures is not to assess the absolute or relative level of perception of such risks, but rather to investigate the effect that viewing the warning statements has on increasing the understanding of the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking.
(Comment) Two comments suggested that, in order to minimize the burden of the proposed collection, FDA should use best practice methods for survey and focus group research, including developing a statistical analysis plan and involving a private consultant with experience in conducting such research efficiently.
(Response) As stated in the supporting statements included in the docket, FDA is working with a skilled and experienced research contractor to conduct the proposed study. In addition, FDA scientific experts possess skill and expertise in conducting such research. Survey and focus group best practices will be used, including avoiding bias in questions due to wording and question order and developing a statistical analysis plan.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research that is similar to this proposed study. Screening potential participants for the 2 pretests will occur with 762 respondents (487 adults and 275 adolescents) identified and recruited through the Internet panel. This brief screening will take an average of 2 minutes (0.033 hours) per respondent. Each of the 2 pretests will consist of 50 respondents (34 adults and 16 adolescents) conducted during a single session and take an average of 15 minutes (0.25 hours) per respondent. Screening potential participants for the main data collection will occur with 19,082 respondents (11,925 adults and 7,157 adolescents) identified and recruited through the same Internet panel as used for the pretests. This brief screening will take an average of 2 minutes (0.033 hours) per respondent. Recent national estimates of the numbers of adolescent current cigarette smokers, adolescents who are susceptible to initiation of cigarette smoking, young adult current cigarette smokers, and older adult current cigarette smokers informed the estimates of 13.9 percent qualification rate for adults and 11.6 percent qualification rate for adolescents. Applying these estimates and other assumptions from previous experience conducting similar studies to the number of adolescents and adults to be screened results in the desired sample size for the main data collection of 2,500 participants, of which 1,667 will be adults and 833 will be adolescents. The main data collection will occur with those 2,500 respondents during a single session. The main data collection will take an average of 15 minutes (0.25 hours) per respondent. The total estimated burden is 1,305 hours (25 hours + 25 hours + 630 hours + 625 hours).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the public meeting on “Administering the Hatch-Waxman Amendments: Ensuring a Balance Between Innovation and Access” for which the notice of public meeting appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the notice of public meeting published June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28493). Submit either electronic or written comments by November 17, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 17, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Philip Bonforte, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1668, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-6980, email:
In the
Following publication of the June 22, 2017, notice of public meeting with request for comments, FDA received requests to allow interested persons additional time to comment. The requesters asserted that the time period of 60 days was insufficient to respond fully to FDA's specific requests for comments and to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address pertinent issues.
FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the notice of public meeting until November 17, 2017.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled “Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments.” This guidance is intended to assist persons making tobacco product establishment registration and product listing submissions to FDA.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may be sent. See the
Matthew Brenner, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, email:
FDA is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled “Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments.” This guidance is intended to assist persons making tobacco product establishment registration and product listing submissions to FDA. We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). We are implementing this guidance without prior public comment because we have determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate given the upcoming compliance deadline for registration and listing for certain owners and operators of tobacco product manufacturing establishments. In addition, the compliance policy for certain product listing labeling submissions set forth in this revised guidance presents a less burdensome policy consistent with the public health (§ 10.115(g)(2)). Although this guidance document is immediately in effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with FDA's GGP regulation.
This revised guidance communicates a compliance policy for certain product listing labeling submissions. Specifically, FDA does not, at this time, intend to enforce the requirement that owners and operators of tobacco product establishments submit the labeling for each individually listed tobacco product if the registrant submits information that represents the labeling for a selected line of products. In deciding whether a registrant's submitted information falls within this compliance policy, FDA may consider whether the tobacco products' labeling is essentially identical (
This revised guidance also updates the compliance date for registration and listing for persons who owned or operated domestic manufacturing establishments engaged in the manufacture of newly deemed products prior to August 8, 2016, and continued to own or operate such establishment(s) on or after August 8, 2016. Such persons are required to register and submit product listing information under section 905 of the FD&C Act by December 31, 2016. However, in a guidance issued in May 2017, FDA announced that it does not intend to enforce these requirements with respect to newly deemed products provided the registration and product listing submissions are received by FDA on or before September 30, 2017.
The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in section 905 of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0650.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), is announcing an invitation for participation in its voluntary Flavor Developer and Manufacturer Site Tours Program. This program is intended to give CTP staff an opportunity to visit companies that develop and/or manufacture flavors (including flavor mixtures) that are sold to tobacco product manufacturers in order to gain a better understanding of the development, testing, and production of flavors and flavor mixtures used in the manufacturing of tobacco products. The site tours in this program are not intended as regulatory inspections. The purpose of this notice is to invite parties interested in participating in the Flavor Developer and Manufacturer Site Tours Program to submit requests to CTP.
Submit either an electronic or written request for participation in this program by November 20, 2017. See section IV of this document for information on requests for participation.
If your company is interested in offering a site visit, please submit a request either electronically to
Karla Price, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email:
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) was enacted on June 22, 2009, amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) by, among other things, adding a new chapter (chapter IX) granting FDA the authority to regulate tobacco product manufacturing, distribution, and marketing (Pub. L. 111-31). The Tobacco Control Act provides FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products that the Agency by regulation deems to be subject to the law. On May 10, 2016, FDA published a final rule entitled “Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products” (81 FR 28974), which became effective on August 8, 2016. Under this rule, all products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” set forth in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), including components and parts, but excluding accessories of newly deemed products, are now subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act.
CTP's Office of Science is conducting the Flavor Developer and Manufacturer Site Tours Program to provide its staff an opportunity to visit companies that develop and/or manufacture flavors (including flavor mixtures) that are sold to tobacco product manufacturers. Flavor developers and manufacturers are regulated by FDA if they, among other things, manufacture products that meet the statutory definition of a “tobacco product” set forth in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act. The site tours will aid the Agency in gaining a better understanding of the development, testing, and production of flavors and flavor mixtures used in the manufacturing of tobacco products. The goal for the Flavor Developer and Manufacturer Site Tours Program is for CTP staff to gain firsthand exposure to how flavors are developed, tested, and produced.
In the Flavor Developer and Manufacturer Site Tours Program, small groups of CTP staff will observe the operations of flavor developers and manufacturers, including the development, testing, and production of flavors that can be used by tobacco product manufacturers. The site tours in this program are not intended as regulatory inspections; rather, the program is meant to educate CTP staff and improve their understanding of flavors used in the manufacturing of tobacco products. It is anticipated that the site tours will take place in 2018.
CTP hopes to be able to tour small, medium, and large flavor developers and manufacturers, as well as companies that develop and/or manufacture flavors that are used for different categories of tobacco products (
To aid in site selection, your request for participation should include the following information:
• A description of your company, including the size of the organization;
• A list of the flavors your company develops and/or manufactures and the categories of tobacco product (
• The physical address(es) of the site(s) for which you are submitting a request; and
• A proposed 1-day tour agenda.
Identify requests for participation with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received requests are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Mental Health Services Research Committee, October 30, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to October 30, 2018, 5:00 p.m., Hotel Palomar, 2121 P Street NW., Washington, DC, 20036 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to correct the meeting date from October 30, 2018 to October 30, 2017. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific
The meeting will be held on October 24, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Contact Person: Brian R. Pike, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3907,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 02-13, Change (1) entitled, “Guidance Implementing the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.” This change incorporates the 2014 amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) related to financial liability for repatriation of seafarers (MLC Regulation 2.5.2) and financial security relating to shipowners' liability in cases of seafarer injury or death (MLC Regulation 4.2.1) into the existing voluntary compliance framework for vessels that engage on international voyages to those countries that are signatory to the MLC. NVIC 02-13, Change (1) is available as indicated in this notice.
If you have questions on Change (1) to Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 02-13 call or email LCDR Christopher Nichols, Coast Guard at telephone 202-372-1208 or email
The changes to the NVIC are minor and do not impose any new requirements on ship owners or operators. These changes include updates to the Statement of Voluntary Compliance—Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (SOVC-DMLC) Parts I and II and the Owner/Operator Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (NVIC Enclosures (4), (5) and (6) respectively), to reflect the requirements relating to financial security for the repatriation of seafarers and financial security relating to shipowners' liability in cases of seafarer injury or death. In addition, a new form letter has been provided in Enclosure (12) which will serve as documentary evidence of financial security. The provisions of this NVIC are voluntary in nature. As such, no public participation or comment period is necessary.
A copy of Navigation and Vessel Incpection Circular (NVIC) 02-13, Change (1) is available at the following Coast Guard Web site:
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meeting; teleconference option.
The meeting of the full Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), scheduled for October 5, 2017, was announced in the
The teleconference option will be available between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on October 5, 2017, unless the meeting ends earlier. In-person participation is still available for the October 5 meeting as well as the subcommittee meetings on October 3 and 4; see the notice published August 30, 2017, for location and pre-registration details (link above). No teleconference option is available for the subcommittee meetings.
Lieutenant Jake Lobb, Alternate Designated Federal Official of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1428, fax 202-372-8380, or
On August 30, 2017, the Coast Guard announced a meeting of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, to occur at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC (82 FR 41279). The full committee will meet on October 5, after subcommittee meetings on October 3 and 4.
To accommodate committee members and members of the public whose travel plans may be affected by recent hurricanes, the U.S. Coast Guard is offering a teleconference option as an alternative to in-person participation. The teleconference will be available only on October 5. To participate via teleconference, please dial 202-475-4000; the participant access code is 607 493 32#. If you encounter technical difficulties with teleconference access,
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0100, Advanced Notice of Vessel Arrival. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before October 19, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2016-1001] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-1001], and must be received by October 19, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (81 FR 95159, December 27, 2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee. The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security on various matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels.
Completed applications should be submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard on or before November 20, 2017.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Jonathan Wendland, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, 202-372-1245 or
The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee which operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, U.S.C. Appendix). The U.S. Coast Guard chartered the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee to provide advice on issues related to the safety of commercial fishing industry vessels regulated under Chapter 45 of title 46, United States Code, which includes uninspected fish catching vessels, fish processing vessels, and fish tender vessels. (See Title 46 U.S.C. 4508.)
The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee meets at least once a year. It may also meet for other extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees or working groups may communicate throughout the year to prepare for meetings or develop proposals for the committee as a whole to address specific tasks.
Each member serves for a term of three years. An individual may be appointed to a term as a member more than once, but not more than two terms consecutively. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided for called meetings.
The U.S. Coast Guard will consider applications for seven (07) positions that will be vacant on January 2018 in the following categories:
(a) Individuals who represent the Commercial Fishing Industry (
(b) An individual who represents the general public (
(c) An individual who represents manufacturers of equipment for vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46, U.S.C. applies (one position);
(d) An individual who represents owners of vessels to which Chapter 45 of Title 46, U.S.C. applies (one position).
If you are selected as a member from the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in Section 202(a) of Title 18, U.S.C. Applicants for appointment as a Special Government Employee are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). The U.S. Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the Designated U.S. Coast Guard Ethics Official or his or her designee may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Applicants can obtain this form by going to the Web site of the Office of Government Ethics (
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on federal advisory committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 CFR 47482, August 13, 2014). Registered lobbyists are lobbyists as defined in Title 2, U.S.C. 1602 who are required by Title 2 U.S.C. 1603 to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House Representatives. The position we list for a member from the general public would be someone appointed in their individual capacity and would be designated as a Special Government Employee as defined in Section 202(a), Title 18, U.S.C.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Jonathan Wendland, Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via one of the transmittal methods in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Inspectorate America Corporation (Sulphur, LA), as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation (Sulphur, LA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of March 29, 2017.
Inspectorate America Corporation (Sulphur, LA) was
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 384 North Post Oak Road, Sulphur, LA 70663 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Bellingham, WA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Bellingham, WA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 16, 2016.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Bellingham, WA) was accredited and approved, as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of August 16, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2019.
Dr. Justin Shey, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 801 W. Orchard Dr., Suite 5, Bellingham, WA 98225 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
On September 8, 2017, I issued a limited waiver of the Jones Act upon the recommendation of the Department of Energy and at the request of the Department of Defense.
The Jones Act, 46 United States Code (U.S.C.) 55102, states that 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 that 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 through September 22, 2017, commencing immediately, to facilitate movement of refined petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, to be shipped from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas to Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico. This waiver applies to covered merchandise laded on board a vessel through and including September 22, 2017.
Executed this 12th day of September, 2017.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Issuance of binding operational directive; procedures for responses; notice of availability.
In order to safeguard Federal information and information systems, DHS has issued a binding operational directive to all Federal, executive branch departments and agencies relating to information security products, solutions, and services supplied, directly or indirectly, by AO Kaspersky Lab or affiliated companies. The binding operational directive requires agencies to identify Kaspersky-branded products (as defined in the directive) on Federal information systems, provide plans to discontinue use of Kaspersky-branded products, and, at 90 calendar days after issuance of the directive, unless directed otherwise by DHS in light of new information, begin to remove Kaspersky-branded products. DHS is also establishing procedures, which are detailed in this notice, to give entities whose commercial interests are directly impacted by this binding operational directive the opportunity to respond, provide additional information, and initiate a review by DHS.
Binding Operational Directive 17-01 was issued on September 13, 2017. DHS must receive responses from impacted entities on or before November 3, 2017.
Submit electronic responses to Binding Operational Directive 17-01, along with any additional information or evidence, to
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS” or “the Department”) has the statutory responsibility, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, to administer the implementation of agency information security policies and practices for information systems, which includes assisting agencies and providing certain government-wide protections. 44 U.S.C. 3553(b). As part of that responsibility, the Department is authorized to “develop[ ] and oversee[ ] the implementation of binding operational directives to agencies to implement the policies, principles, standards, and guidance developed by the Director [of the Office of Management and Budget] and [certain] requirements of [the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014.]” 44 U.S.C. 3553(b)(2). A binding operational directive (“BOD”) is “a compulsory direction to an agency that (A) is for purposes of safeguarding Federal information and information systems from a known or reasonably suspected information security threat, vulnerability, or risk; [and] (B) [is] in accordance with policies, principles, standards, and guidelines issued by the Director[.]” 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(1). Agencies are required to comply with these directives. 44 U.S.C. 3554(a)(1)(B)(ii).
In carrying out this statutory responsibility, the Department issued BOD 17-01, titled “Removal of Kaspersky-Branded Products.” The text of BOD 17-01 is reproduced in the next section of this document.
Binding Operational Directive 17-01 may have adverse consequences for the commercial interests of AO Kaspersky Lab or other entities. Therefore, the Department will provide entities whose commercial interests are directly impacted by BOD 17-01 the opportunity to respond to the BOD, as detailed in the Administrative Process for Responding to Binding Operational Directive 17-01 section of this notice, below.
Binding Operational Directive BOD-17-01
A binding operational directive is a compulsory direction to Federal, executive branch, departments and agencies for purposes of safeguarding Federal information and information systems. 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(1). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) develops and oversees the implementation of binding operational directives pursuant to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (“FISMA”). 44 U.S.C. 3553(b)(2). Federal agencies are required to comply with these DHS-developed directives. 44 U.S.C. 3554(a)(1)(B)(ii). DHS binding operational directives do not apply to statutorily defined “National Security Systems” nor to certain systems operated by the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. 44 U.S.C. 3553(d)-(e).
• “Agencies” means all Federal, executive branch, departments and agencies. This directive does not apply to statutorily defined “National Security Systems” nor to certain systems operated by the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. 44 U.S.C. 3553(d)-(e)
• “Kaspersky-branded products” means information security products, solutions, and services supplied, directly or indirectly, by AO Kaspersky Lab or any of its predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, including Kaspersky Lab North America, Kaspersky Lab, Inc., and Kaspersky Government Security Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Kaspersky”), including those identified below.
Kaspersky-branded products currently known to DHS are: Kaspersky Anti-Virus; Kaspersky Internet Security; Kaspersky Total Security; Kaspersky Small Office Security; Kaspersky Anti Targeted Attack; Kaspersky Endpoint Security; Kaspersky Cloud Security (Enterprise); Kaspersky Cybersecurity Services; Kaspersky Private Security Network; and Kaspersky Embedded Systems Security.
This directive does not address Kaspersky code embedded in the products of other companies. It also does not address the following Kaspersky services: Kaspersky Threat Intelligence and Kaspersky Security Training.
• “Federal information system” means an information system used or operated by an agency or by a contractor of an agency or by another organization on behalf of an agency.
1. Within 30 calendar days after issuance of this directive, identify the use or presence of Kaspersky-branded products on all Federal information systems and provide to DHS a report that includes:
a. A list of Kaspersky-branded products found on agency information systems. If agencies do not find the use or presence of Kaspersky-branded products on their Federal information systems, inform DHS that no Kaspersky-branded products were found.
b. The number of endpoints impacts by each product, and
c. The methodologies employed to identify the use or presence of the products.
2. Within 60 calendar days after issuance of this directive, develop and provide to DHS a detailed plan of action to remove and discontinue present and future use of all Kaspersky-branded products beginning 90 calendar days after issuance of this directive. Agency plans must address the following elements in the attached template
a. Agency name.
b. Point of contact information, including name, telephone number, and email address.
c. List of identified products.
d. Number of endpoints impacted.
e. Methodologies employed to identify the use or presence of the products.
f. List of Agencies (components) impacted within Department.
g. Mission function of impacted endpoints and/or systems.
h. All contracts, service-level agreements, or other agreements your agency has entered into with Kaspersky.
i. Timeline to remove identified products.
j. If applicable, FISMA performance requirements or security controls that product removal would impact, including but not limited to data loss/leakage prevention, network access control, mobile device management, sandboxing/detonation chamber, Web site reputation filtering/web content filtering, hardware and software whitelisting, vulnerability and patch management, anti-malware, anti-exploit, spam filtering, data encryption, or other capabilities.
k. If applicable, chosen or proposed replacement products/capabilities.
l. If applicable, timeline for implementing replacement products/capabilities.
m. Foreseeable challenges not otherwise addressed in this plan.
n. Associated costs related to licenses, maintenance, and replacement (please coordinate with agency Chief Financial Officers).
3. At 90 calendar days after issuance of this directive, and unless directed otherwise by DHS based on new information, begin to implement the agency plan of action and provide a status report to DHS on the progress of that implementation every 30 calendar days thereafter until full removal and discontinuance of use is achieved.
• DHS will rely on agency self-reporting and independent validation measures for tracking and verifying progress.
• DHS will provide additional guidance through the Federal Cybersecurity Coordination, Assessment, and Response Protocol (the C-CAR Protocol) following the issuance of this directive.
The Department will provide entities whose commercial interests are directly impacted by BOD 17-01 the opportunity to respond to the BOD, as detailed below:
• The Department has notified Kaspersky about BOD 17-01 and outlined the Department's concerns that led to the decision to issue this BOD. This correspondence with Kaspersky is available (in electronic format) to other parties whose commercial interests are directly impacted by BOD-17-01, upon request. Requests must be directed to
• If it wishes to initiate a review by DHS, by November 3, 2017, Kaspersky, and any other entity that claims its commercial interests will be directly impacted by the BOD, must provide the Department with a written response and any additional information or evidence supporting the response, to explain the adverse consequences, address the Department's concerns, or mitigate those concerns.
• The Department's Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications, or another official designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security (“the Secretary”), will review the materials relevant to the issues raised by the entity, and will issue a recommendation to the Secretary regarding the matter. The Secretary's decision will be communicated to the entity in writing by December 13, 2017.
• The Secretary reserves the right to extend the timelines identified above.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of reservation proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 267.29 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe on July 21, 2017.
Ms. Sharlene M. Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, 1849 C Street NW., MS-4642-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone: (202) 208-3615.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 5110) for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be the Jamestown S'Klallam Reservation for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Clallam County, State of Washington.
Legal description containing 5.090 acres, more or less.
That portion of Lot 28 of Keeler's Sunrise Beach, as recorded in Volume 4 of plats, page 46, records of Clallam County, Washington, lying between the Northeasterly right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railway and the Northeasterly right of way line of the present existing State Highway No. 9 and bounded on the Southeasterly end by the Northerly right of way line of the existing Old Olympic Highway;
Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of said Section 34; thence North 87°42′55″ West, a distance of 317.69 feet along the North Line of the said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to a point lying on the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the abandoned Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad and the
Legal description containing 30.36 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 5.00 acres, more or less.
Also together with an easement for access across the South 30 feet of the East 82.74 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; Also the right of easement to use for construction and maintenance of sewage disposal drainfields and appurtenances, over, under, across and upon the Northeast Quarter of Parcel 2 recorded under Auditor's File No. 497555. Containing 5.00 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 2.75 acres, more or less.
Lot U, Jamestown Addition in the North Half of Section 5, Township 30 North, Range 3 West, Williamette Meridian, Records of Clallam County, Washington, except any portion lying within County Road NR5550 (Jake Hall Road). Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington. Containing 2.75 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 1.18 acres, more or less.
That portion of Tracts 2, 3, 5, and 5A in Lot 2 of Assessor's Plat of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, as recorded in Volume 4 of Plats, Page 5, lying Westerly of Zaccardo Road and Northerly of Boundary Line established in instrument recorded May 14, 1992 under Auditor's File No. 668449 described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Tract 3; Thence South 30°32′52″ East 10.0 feet; Thence North 64°00′06″ East 208.45 feet to the Westerly margin of Zaccardo Road and the terminus of said line description. Situate in Clallam County, Washington. Containing 1.18 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 5.007 acres, more or less.
That portion of Government Lot 6 in Section 7, Township 29 North, Range 2 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, as delineated on Survey recorded in Volume 20 of Surveys, page 82, under Auditor's File No. 650637, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Government Lot 6; Thence South 85 Degrees 31′53″ East along the North line of said Government Lot 6, a distance of 20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing South 85 degrees 31′53″ East, a distance of 970.00 feet; Thence South 2 Degrees 24′56″ West, parallel to the West Line of said Government Lot 6, a distance of 191.00 feet; Thence North 85 degrees 31′53″ West, parallel to the North Line of said Government Lot 6, a distance of 730.00 feet; Thence South 2 degrees 24′56″ West, parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 6, a distance of 137.40 feet; Thence North 85 degrees 31′53″ West, parallel to the North Line of said Government Lot 6, a distance of 240.00 feet to the intersection of the East right of way line of Zaccardo Road; Thence North 2 degrees 24′56″ East, parallel to the West line of said East right of way Line of Zaccardo Road; Thence North 2 degrees 24′56″ East, parallel to the West line of said East right of way line of Zaccardo Road also being parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 6, a distance of 328.40 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington. Containing 5.007 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 1.19 acres, more or less.
Lot 1 of Short Plat recorded in Volume 7 of Short Plats; Page 3, Under Clallam County Recording No. 496835, being a short plat of Parcel 5 of Survey recorded in Volume 3 of Surveys, page 119, in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M. Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington. Containing 1.19 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 3.52 acres, more or less.
Lot 2, 3 and 4 of Clevenger Short Plat recorded on June 6, 1979 In Volume 7 of Short Plats, Page 3, Under Auditor's File No. 496835, being a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter in Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington. Containing 3.52 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 6.00 acres, more or less.
That portion of the West Half of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, described as Lot 2, as delineated on Survey recorded on October 8, 1982 in Volume 8 of Surveys, page 17, under Auditor's File No. 535557. Containing 6.00 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 13.43 acres, more or less.
Portion of Tract 5 of Lot 1 of Assessor's Map of Section 12, together with tidelands in front of, adjacent to or abutting on the South 295 feet of Lot 1, per Independent Survey dated 7-9-91, recorded 8-21-91, in Volume 21, Page 68, under File Number 655576. Situated in Clallam County, State of Washington. Containing 13.43 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 24.220 acres, more or less.
That portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, lying East of the Dungeness River described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Section 23, said Northeast Corner being South 88 degrees 31′10″ East 2655.02 feet from the North Quarter Corner of said Section 23, and also being North 1 degree 58′10″ East 2657.11 feet from the East Quarter Corner of said Section 23, Thence South 89 degrees 58' West 506 feet, more or less, to the East edge of the Dungeness River; Thence Southerly along said East edge 468 feet, more or less, to a point which bears South 49 degrees 58′40″ West 680.40 feet from the Point of Beginning; Thence East 88.18 feet to the Northwesterly right of way of the County Road; Thence along said right of way being 30 feet perpendicular from the existing centerline thereof 570 feet, more or less, to a point on the East line of said Section 23, which point bears South 1 degree 58′10″ West 104.70 feet from the True Point of Beginning; Thence North 1 degree 58′10″ East 104.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 4.34 acres, more or less.
That portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, lying East of the Dungeness River as it presently exists and South of the railroad right of way, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast Section Corner, said Section 23, Thence South 1 degree 58′10″ West along the East line thereof 670.05 feet to the South margin of the railroad right of way to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continuing South 1 degree 58′10″ West along said East line 658.50 feet to the South line of
That portion of the West 107.5 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, lying Northerly of the Centerline of County Road known as Hendrickson Road; Except that portion lying in said Hendrickson Road, containing 0.24 acre, more or less, after the above exception.
A strip of land 100 feet wide being the former right of way for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company located in the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, containing 6.0 acres, more or less.
Legal description contains 11.035 acres, more or less.
Title to the lands herein described shall be subject to any existing easements for public road and highways, for public utilities and for railroads and pipelines and any other rights-of-way of record.
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of said Lot 2; Thence North 84 15′10″ West along the South line thereof 71.264 feet; Thence North 07 30′00″ West 237.507 feet; Thence North 31 30′00″ West 100.88 feet to the West Line of Lot 2; Thence North 06 36′08″ East along said West Line 144.62 feet to the North line of Lot 2.
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of said Lot 2; Thence North 84 15′10″ West along the South line thereof 71.264 feet; Thence North 07 30′00″ West 237.507 feet; Thence North 31 30′00″ West 100.88 feet to the West Line of Lot 2; Thence North 06 30′08″ East along said West line 144.62 feet to the North line of Lot 2.
Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington. Containing 11.035 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 19.15 acres, more or less.
The land referred to herein is situated in the County of Clallam, State of Washington, and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North-South line, 550 feet South of Center Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, described as follows:
Thence North 83
Thence North 53
Thence North 160 feet;
Thence Easterly along South boundary of right of way Highway 101, a distance of 54 feet;
Thence South 226 feet, more or less, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington.
Lot 2 of Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Survey, recorded February 13, 2009 in Volume 67 of Surveys, page 94, under Clallam County Recording No. 2009 1232429, being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington. Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington.
Lot 3 of Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Survey, recorded February 13, 2009 in Volume 67 of Surveys, page 94, under Clallam County Recording No. 2009 1232429, being the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington. Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington.
Lot 1 of Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Survey, recorded February 13, 2009 in Volume 67 of Surveys, page 94, under Clallam County Recording No. 2009 1232429, being a portion of the Southeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington. Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington.
Parcels A and B of Meyer Boundary Line Adjustment Survey, recorded December 14, 2004, in Volume 57 of Surveys, page 1, under Clallam County Recording No. 2004 1147158, being a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 3 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington. Situate in Clallam County, State of Washington. Containing 19.15 acres, more or less.
Legal description containing 139.36 acres, more or less.
Running thence North along its East Boundary 330 feet;
Thence West along its North Boundary 200 feet;
Thence Southeasterly in a straight line 385 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning of this exception;
And except that portion conveyed to William H. Clevenger and Janis Clevenger, his wife, James M. Bunger and Barbara J. Bunger, his wife, and Richard J. Niichel and Frances M. Niichel, his wife, hereinafter called Ostrich Club, by Property Line Agreement recorded February 3, 1992, under Clallam County Recording No. 663413.
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter;
Thence South 88°31′46″ East 135.38 feet along its North Line;
Thence South 1°55′39″ West 550.00 feet;
Thence South 88°31′46″ East 80.07 feet;
Thence South 1°55′39″ West 200.07 feet to the North Right-of-Way Line of May Road;
Thence South 35°13′03″ East 77.19 feet;
Thence North 86°13′48″ West 262.21 feet along the South Right-of-Way Line of May Road;
Thence North 1°55′39″ East 801.45 feet along the West Line of said Southeast Quarter to the true point of beginning.
Thence South 88°00′49″ East along the South Line of said Southeast Quarter 1,002.44 feet to the point of beginning;
Thence continuing South 88°00″49″ East 326.32 feet to the East Line of the Southwest Quarter of said Southeast Quarter;
Thence North 1°55′39″ East along said East Line 496.67 feet;
Thence South 87°00′00″ West 215.32 feet;
Thence South 22°37′04″ West 315.88 feet;
Thence South 1°59′11″ West 182.36 feet to the point of beginning;
Except the South 30 feet for County Road No. 5250 known as Macleay Road.
Beginning at a point on the South Line of said Southeast Quarter South 88°00′49″ East 200 feet from its Southwest Corner;
Thence North 88°00′49″ West 200 feet to said Southwest Corner;
Thence North 1°55′40″ East along its West Line 527.92 feet;
Thence South 81°30′ East 160 feet, more or less, to the East Margin of Vista View Drive;
Thence Northerly along said Easterly Margin 160 feet, more or less, to the Southwest Corner of Lot 2 of Replat of Lots 27, 28 and 29 of Mountain Vista, as Recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 9;
Thence South 60°15′ East 64.55 feet, more or less, to the center of the main channel of an unnamed stream;
Thence Southerly along said center of stream to a point which bears North 1°55′4″ East of the point of beginning;
Thence South 1°55′40″ West 450 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning;
Excepting therefrom that portion lying within said Mountain View Vista, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 53;
And also except the South 30 feet for County Road No. 5250 known as Macleay Road.
Excepting therefrom that portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Southeast Quarter;
Thence South 88°00′49″ East along the South Line of said Southeast Quarter 1,002.44 feet to the point of beginning;
Thence continuing South 88°00′49″ East 326.32 feet to the East Line of the Southwest Quarter of said Southeast Quarter;
Thence North 1°55′39″ East along said East Line 496.67 feet;
Thence South 87°00′00″ West 215.32 feet;
Thence South 22°37′04″ West 315.88 feet;
Thence South 1°59′11″ West 182.36 feet to the point of beginning;
And also except that portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the South Line of said Southeast Quarter South 88°00′49″ East 200 feet from its Southwest Corner;
Thence North 88°00′49″ West 200 feet to said Southwest Corner;
Thence North 1°55′40″ East along its West Line 527.92 feet;
Thence South 81°30′ East 160 feet, more or less, to the east margin of Vista View Drive;
Thence Northerly along said easterly margin 160 feet, more or less, to the Southwest Corner of Lot 2 of Replat of Lots 27, 28 and 29 of Mountain Vista, as recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 9;
Thence South 60°15′ East 64.55 feet, more or less, to the center of the main channel of an unnamed stream;
Thence Southerly along said center of stream to a point which bears North 1°55′40″ East of the point of beginning;
Thence South 1°55′40″ West 450 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; And except the Plats of Mountain Vista, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 53, and Mountain Vista II, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 73 and Dungeness Condominium, as recorded in Volume 1 of Condominium, Pages 156-161 inclusive; And also except the South 30 Feet for County Road No. 5250 known as Macleay Road.
Beginning at a point on the North Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter which is South 88°31′46″ East 365.38 feet from the Northwest Corner thereof, said point being the Northwest Corner of Lot 10 of Mountain View Farm Tracts, as recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, Page 41, Records of Clallam County, Washington;
Thence North 88°31′46″ West 230.00 feet;
Thence South 1°55′39″ West 550.00 feet;
Thence South 88°31′46″ East 80.07 feet;
Thence South 1°55′39″ West 200.07 feet to the North Right of Way Line of May Road;
Thence South 86°13′48″ East along said Right of Way 150.00 feet to the Southwest Corner of above said Lot 10;
Thence North 1°55′39″ East along the West Line of said Lot 10, a distance of 756.09 feet to the true point of beginning.
A portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 30 North, Range 4 West, W.M., Clallam County, Washington, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the 4″ x 4″ concrete monument with a brass plate marking the Southwest Corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 3, as shown on Volume 12 of Surveys, Page 60, Records of Clallam County, Washington;
Thence South 88°31′16″ East along the South Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1,316.32 feet to the center of said Section 3, as shown on said Survey (all bearings and distances herein are relative to the Washington Coordinate System, North Zone), and the True Point of Beginning;
Thence North 88°31′16″ West along said South Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 836.32 feet;
Thence North 45°02′43″ West, a distance of 412.20 feet;
Thence South 88°02′08″ East, a distance of 282.76 feet;
Thence South 40°06′24″ East, a distance of 249.91 feet;
Thence South 88°29′27″ East, a distance of 620.58 feet to the East Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
Thence South 01°55′40″ West, a distance of 19.17 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 139.36 acres, more or less.
The above described lands contain a total of 267.29 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the lands described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads, highways, public utilities, railroads, and pipelines or any other valid easements or rights-of-way or reservations of record.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 19, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by October 4, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 19, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property the National Register of Historic Places.
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Governor of Connecticut has requested that the Secretary of the Interior add a 41-mile segment of the Housatonic River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The National Park Service will conduct an evaluation of the Governor's request and make a recommendation to the Secretary about whether to include the proposed segments in the System after public and agency comment on the evaluation.
Materials submitted by the Governor are available online at:
Jamie Fosburgh, Northeast Region Rivers Program Leader, National Park Service, at
On November 16, 2016, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy requested the Secretary of the Interior to add a 41-mile segment of the Housatonic River from the Massachusetts—Connecticut border downstream to Boardman Bridge, New Milford, Connecticut, to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System pursuant to Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-542;
Under the requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission upon receipt of an application and to publish such application in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 26, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by October 4, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 26, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until October 19, 2017.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any other additional information, please contact Shawn Stevens, ATF Industry Liaison, Federal Explosives Licensing Center, either by mail at Federal Explosives Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and
Thursday, October 5, 2017, 10:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., Local Time.
NASA Johnson Space Center, Room 966, 2101 NASA Parkway, Building 1, Houston, TX 77058.
Ms. Evette Whatley, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4733, or email at
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its Fourth Quarterly Meeting for 2017. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include:
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. This meeting is also available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number (888) 469-0505; pass code 5829034. Attendees will be required to sign a visitor's register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) desiring to attend the ASAP 2017 Fourth Quarterly Meeting at the NASA Johnson Space Center must provide their full name and company affiliation (if applicable) to Ms. Stephanie Castillo at
At the beginning of the meeting, members of the public may make a verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA, not to exceed 5-minutes in length. To do so, members of the public must contact Ms. Evette Whatley at
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 on the Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received October 19, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725 17th Street NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to
Suzanne H. Plimpton at
This is the second notice for public comment on plans to obtain OMB clearance for the Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering; the first notice was published in the
The Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (GSS), sponsored by NCSES within NSF and the National Institutes of Health, is designed to comply with legislative mandates by providing information on the characteristics of graduate students and postdoctorates appointees (postdocs) in science, engineering and health (SEH) fields. The GSS, which originated in 1966 and has been conducted annually since 1972, is a census of all departments in SEH fields within academic institutions with graduate programs in the United States.
The GSS is the only national survey that collects information on the characteristics of graduate enrollment for specific SEH disciplines at the department level. It collects information on ethnicity and race, citizenship, sex, sources of support, mechanisms of support, and enrollment status for graduate students; information on postdocs by ethnicity and race, citizenship, sex, sources of support, mechanism of support, doctorate type and degree origin; and information on other doctorate-holding non-faculty researchers by gender and doctorate type. To improve coverage of postdocs, the GSS also periodically collects information on the ethnicity and race, sex, citizenship, source of support, field of research for the postdocs employed in Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). The data are solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the Privacy Act of 1974. All information will be used for statistical purposes only. Participation in the survey is voluntary.
Starting in 2017, the GSS will be redesigned to improve the data utility, data reporting, and to reduce response burden. The redesign changes to be implemented include: (1) Separate reporting of enrollment and financial support data for master's and doctoral students; (2) reporting of data based on the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes for the departments; and (3) expanding the institutional use of file transfers for data submission, instead of manual entry of data in the GSS Web survey instrument. The redesigned data collection will not ask new questions but the primary method used to report the graduate student enrollment and financial support data will change for the institutions.
The initial GSS data request will be sent to the designated respondent (School Coordinator) at each academic institution in the fall. The School Coordinator may upload a file with requested data on the GSS Web site, which will automatically aggregate the data and populate the cells of the Web survey instrument for each eligible unit (departments, programs, research centers and health care facilities).
The School Coordinator will be also able to upload partial data (
NSF will publish statistics from the survey in several reports, including the National Science Board's
Burden estimate calculations are based on the survey completion times reported by the 2016 Pilot GSS respondents, as compared to their completion times reported in the 2015 GSS. Because completion time differs by reporting institution type, burden is estimated separately based on three types of institutions and the proportion they constitute in the GSS frame—institutions enrolling only master's students, institutions enrolling both master's and doctoral students with 15 or fewer reporting units, and institutions enrolling both master's and doctoral students with more than 15 reporting units (see Table 1).
Burden estimates for each reporting institution type are shown in Table 2.
The number of units in the subsequent survey cycle will include the institutions in the previous year plus an approximate 1 percent increase in institutions. The FFRDC postdoc data collection will take place in 2017 and 2019, and the estimated burden for those years will increase by 159 hours from 43 FFRDCs (based on 100 percent response rate in 2015 with the average burden of 3.7 hours per FFRDC) to a total of 30,086 and 30,738 hours, respectively (see Table 3). Estimates of the 2018 GSS burden are 30,262 hours. An additional 800 hours across three years are requested to conduct methodological testing.
The total estimated respondent burden of the GSS, including 800 hours for the methodological studies, will be 91,886 hours over the 3-survey clearance period.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an amendment to Materials License 42-23539-01AF, issued to the Department of the Air Force (licensee), Docket No. 030-28641, to approve a decommissioning plan (DP) for Building 181 at Robins Air Force Base (AFB), Georgia. If the DP is approved by the NRC, the licensee would be authorized to remediate residual depleted uranium (DU) from the building, prior to partial demolition of the building. As part of its review, the NRC conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed decommissioning action. The NRC concluded that the proposed decommissioning project will have minimal impacts on the environment. This Notice provides details of the NRC's environmental assessment. Based in part on this assessment, the NRC plans to approve the proposed DP by amending the license.
Materials License 42-23539-01AF, Docket No. 030-28641, will be amended to approve the DP on or after September 19, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0095 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Vivian Campbell, Region IV Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1600 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington, TX 76011; telephone: 817-200-1455, email:
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Materials License 42-23539-01AF, issued to Department of the Air Force, approving the proposed DP for remediation of Building 181 at Robins AFB, Georgia (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17094A481 and ML17167A420, respectively). If approved by the NRC, the licensee would be allowed to remediate residual DU from inside and underneath the building as necessary to meet the NRC's criteria for unrestricted use. Therefore, as required by part 51 of title 10 of the
The NRC's proposed action is to amend License 42-23539-01AF to approve the proposed DP, as revised. The licensee would then be authorized to conduct decommissioning work as specified in the NRC-approved DP. Concurrently with the approval of the proposed decommissioning work instructions, the NRC plans to approve the licensee's proposed site-specific radiological release criteria and final status survey plan.
If approved, the licensee's contractor will remediate residual radioactive contamination and lead-based paint from the interior of the building using instructions provided in the DP. After completion of decommissioning, the contractor will conduct a final status survey of the building surfaces in accordance with the instructions provided in the DP. The residual radioactive and hazardous waste material will be disposed at an authorized disposal site based on sample results of the removed material. During building demolition, the contractor will radiologically survey the soil underneath portions of the building to ensure that the soil is not contaminated with radioactive material. If contaminated, the soil will be removed for disposal.
After completion of building demolition, the contractor will conduct a final status survey of the land underneath the area where Cells 5 and 6 were previously located, to ensure that the soil does not contain contamination greater than the NRC-approved release criteria. The NRC staff plans to conduct routine inspections during decommissioning and the final status surveys. The NRC will also review and approve the licensee's final status survey results after completion of the decommissioning process. The NRC may elect to conduct an independent radiological confirmatory survey to confirm the licensee's final status survey results.
The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce the residual radioactivity within Building 181 to levels that allow the release of the property for unrestricted use. If the licensee conducts site remediation in accordance with instructions provided in the DP, the licensee will be in compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination as specified in regulation 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. Approval of the DP would allow the NRC to fulfill its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment.
The NRC staff considered the possible environmental impacts of the proposed action. The staff considered the impacts on the following environmental resources: (1) Land use; (2) transportation; (3) geology and soils; (4) water resources; (5) ecology; (6) meteorology, climatology, and air quality; (7) noise; (8) historical and cultural resources; (9) visual/scenic resources; (10) socioeconomic; (11) public and occupational health; and (12) waste management.
Building 181 is located within the boundary of Robins AFB. Other structures and paved roads are located around the property. An airfield and tarmac are located nearby. The property will remain under the control of the Air Force during and after decommissioning. Upon completion of decommissioning and NRC approval of the final status survey results, the licensee is expected to release the land and remainder of the building for unrestricted use. The land use is not expected to change significantly as a result of this decommissioning project.
The transportation resource will be impacted slightly during demolition of the building. Additional vehicles will be needed to demolish the building and to remove the demolished debris. This increase in transportation resources will only exist as long as building demolition is in progress. After completion of demolition, the transportation resource should return to normal. A few additional trucks will be needed for shipment of the radiologically contaminated material to a disposal site. The number of additional trucks is expected to be small, based on the low volume of material required to be disposed.
The local geology and soils are not expected to be impacted by building demolition. The local soils were already impacted by the construction of the building and surrounding infrastructure. Although unlikely, if the licensee discovers contaminated soil underneath the building, the soil with contamination above the NRC-approved cleanup criteria will have to be excavated and packaged for shipment. Clean backfill may be needed to fill any soil removed during decommissioning. The area of the demolition project is small when compared to the overall size of the military base.
The water resources are not expected to be impacted by building demolition. Based on the depth of the unsaturated zone (25 feet/7.6 meter) and the thickness of the floor (5-6 feet/1.5-1.8 meters), the licensee concluded that it was unlikely that DU contamination within Building 181 has migrated into the groundwater. As noted in the DP, the contractor will try to prevent potentially contaminated water from exiting the building. The contractor will plug building drains during decommissioning work. If the buildup of water occurs in the building, the contractor will install containments at exit points, such as doorways, to prevent releases of potentially contaminated water from leaving the building.
The demolition of the building is not expected to have an impact on local ecology. No critical or endangered species or habitats are expected to be impacted, since the building is surrounded by other buildings and pavement.
The demolition of the building may have short-term impacts on air quality. These potential impacts include possible release of airborne radioactive particulates during decommissioning, airborne dust during demolition, and vehicle exhaust. To protect against releases of potentially radioactive airborne effluents, the licensee's contractor plans to collect outdoor air samples during decommissioning work. If the airborne particulate action level is exceeded, the building doors will be shut to minimize airborne effluents. With regards to the potential for airborne dust during building demolition, the demolition contractor is expected to take typical industrial precautions to minimize airborne dust including use of water suppression or discontinuing work during windy conditions. Finally, the work will result in a short term increase of vehicle exhaust during building demolition work. The percent increase in vehicle exhaust is expected to be small compared to the relative size of the Air Force base.
Noise will increase during building demolition work. The increase in noise is expected to be limited to daytime hours and will last only for the duration of the work.
No historical, cultural, visual, or scenic resources are expected to be impacted. Any cultural or historical resource would have been impacted during the construction of the building. The demolition of the building is not expected to impact any resources beyond the area already impacted by current development. The decommissioning and demolition of the building will not impact scenic or visual resources. The building is not considered historically significant, otherwise, the Air Force would not be demolishing it.
The decommissioning and demolition of the building will not impact any social groups, and the economic impacts of the work activities are expected to be minimal. The Air Force has not stated what it plans to do with the area once the building has been partially demolished, but the land use will most likely be similar to what is already in place. The Air Force does not plan to relinquish control of the area after building demolition, and the footprint of the building will continue to remain within the boundary of Robins AFB.
The decommissioning contractor will provide measures to control public and occupational health during work. For example, the decommissioning contractor will monitoring workers for exposure to airborne radioactivity. The demolition contractor is expected to implement typical industrial safety controls such as issuance of safety equipment to workers, control of work area boundaries, and suppression of dust. As part of its review, the NRC considered the impacts of residual radioactivity that may remain within building rubble or subsurface soil. The licensee proposed cleanup criteria that is protective of human health and safety. The licensee's contractor is expected to remove the residual radioactive contamination to levels that are at or below the cleanup criteria, an action that is protective of public health and safety. Details about the NRC's analysis of the cleanup criteria are provided in a separate Safety Evaluation Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML17193A222).
Finally, the decommissioning contractor established procedures for disposal of waste material. The DP indicates that the contractor plans to sample the waste material, to identify the levels of radiological and hazardous materials present. As noted earlier, the contractor will also remove lead-based paint as part of the work project. The concentrations of radioactive and hazardous wastes in the material will dictate how the material will be packaged and transported, and the concentrations will be used to identify the disposal sites that can accept this material for disposal. The demolition contractor is expected to sample the rubble to ensure that the material meets the standards for the chosen waste landfill. Liquid wastes are not expected to be created.
In summary, the proposed decommissioning and building demolition are not expected to have significant, long-term impacts on environmental resources. Additional details about the NRC's environmental review are provided in an expanded EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML17207A232).
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it violates the NRC's Timeliness Rule regulations specified in 10 CFR 30.36. The Timeliness Rule requires licensees to decommission their facilities in a timely manner when licensed activities have permanently ceased. In addition, the radioactive contamination at Building 181 currently exceeds the radiological criteria for license termination as specified in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. Approval of the no-action alternative will prevent the licensee from conducting decommissioning work as necessary to release the site for unrestricted use under Subpart E requirements. Accordingly, the NRC staff eliminated the no-action alternative from consideration.
The NRC staff consulted with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Radioactive Materials Program, regarding the EA of the proposed action (ADAMS Accession No. ML17193A244). The State's comments are discussed below.
The NRC staff determined that the proposed action will not affect endangered species or critical habitats, because the project is located within an area that was fully developed. Therefore, no further consultations were deemed necessary under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to impact historic properties, in part, because the building has not been designated as a historic property by the Air Force. Therefore, no further consultation was determined to be necessary under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
By email dated August 14, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17227A184), the State of Georgia suggested that once demolition is complete and soil contamination surveys are accomplished, if these surveys reveal any soil contamination, a groundwater survey should be conducted. In the past, the State has seen instances of groundwater contamination, for example, around a contaminated vault that had to be remediated. While there is no evidence of soil contamination beneath Building 181, the State believes that sampling of the groundwater is prudent if the soil is contaminated. The NRC staff informed the licensee of the
The NRC staff have concluded that the proposed decommissioning project at Robins AFB, Georgia, will have minimal impacts on the environment. The NRC staff considered the impacts on land use, transportation, geology and soils, water resources, ecology, air quality, noise, historical and cultural resources, visual and scenic resources, socioeconomic resources, public and occupational health, and waste management. The staff also determined that the affected environment and the environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning of Building 181 are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volume 1, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (ADAMS Accession No. ML042310492).
The staff finds that the proposed decommissioning complies with 10 CFR 20.1402, which provides the radiological criteria for unrestricted use. Further, the licensee will perform the remediation work under an NRC license, using an NRC-approved decommissioning plan, which will help ensure that the licensee and its contractor will establish and implement programs to protect workers, the public, and the environment. Further, the NRC plans to conduct inspections during work activities. Past NRC experiences with decommissioning activities at similar sites suggest that public and worker exposures to radioactivity will be far below the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20.
The NRC staff have prepared this EA in support of the proposed action to amend NRC Materials License 42-23539-01AF to approve the licensee's proposed DP for Building 181 at Robins AFB. On the basis of this EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a FONSI is appropriate.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Fitness-for-Duty Programs.”
Submit comments by October 19, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0146), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0107 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Fitness-for-Duty Programs.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intent to request extension of OMB approval, with modifications.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval (with modifications), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of its collection of information for Annual Reporting under OMB control number 1212-0057,
Comments must be submitted by November 20, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
PBGC will make all comments available on its Web site at
Copies of the collection of information and comments may be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, or by calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.)
Jo Amato Burns (
Annual reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is required by law for most employee benefit plans. For example, section 4065 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires annual reporting to PBGC for pension plans covered by title IV of ERISA. To accommodate these filing requirements, PBGC, IRS, and EBSA have jointly promulgated the Form 5500 Series, which includes the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan and the Form 5500-SF Short Form Annual Return/Report of Small Employee Benefit Plan.
The collection of information has been approved by OMB under control number 1212-0057 through August 31, 2020. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval, with modifications, for three years. 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.
PBGC is proposing two modifications to the 2017 Schedule MB (Multiemployer Defined Benefit Plan Actuarial Information) instructions and one modification to the Schedule SB (Single Employer Defined Benefit Plan Actuarial Information) instructions. These modifications affect multiemployer defined benefit plans and single-employer defined benefit plans covered by Title IV of ERISA.
With regard to the Schedule MB instructions, PBGC is proposing to change the instructions to require new attachments in two situations as explained below:
• If any of the contributions reported in Line 3 (Contributions Made to Plan) include amounts owed for withdrawal liability, PBGC is proposing to require plan administrators to report for each reported contribution (on an attachment to Line 3), the aggregate amount of withdrawal liability payments included in such contribution. This will enable PBGC to allocate the reported contributions between regular contributions and withdrawal liability payments and is consistent with intent of Line 3 to provide contribution information for projection purposes.
Ongoing contributions are expected annually from ongoing employers. Withdrawal liability payments are contributions paid by employers who have withdrawn from the plan and thus, at some point, will stop contributing. Separating withdrawal payments from contributions will assist in projections of future ongoing contributions and also will provide information regarding withdrawing employers.
• For multiemployer plans in Critical or Critical and Declining status (
○ Year-by-year cash flow projections for the period ending with whichever is applicable: The year the plan is projected to emerge from Critical or Critical and Declining Status or the year the plan is projected to become insolvent, and
○ A summary of the assumptions underlying these projections.
PBGC is proposing the addition of this information to enable PBGC to better project the impact on participants and PBGC's insurance system.
With regard to the Schedule SB instructions, PBGC is proposing to change the instructions related to an attachment that is currently required of plans for which the IRS has granted permission to use a substitute mortality table. The current instructions for Schedule SB, item 23, describe the information that is to be included in the attachment. Those instructions reflect the current IRS regulation on the use of substitute mortality tables, 26 CFR 1.430(h)(3)-2. The proposed changes to the Schedule SB are based on amendments to the IRS mortality table regulations that are proposed to become effective on 1/1/2018. If the regulations are not effective on 1/1/2018, then the proposed changes to the Schedule SB will be deleted from the final Form 5500 instructions. PBGC is proposing to require plans to report additional information (consistent with the amended regulation) as part of the item 23 attachment. The addition of information will allow PBGC to reconstruct the substitute table for which the plan has sought IRS approval. This will enable PBGC to better predict future funding requirements and the impact on participants and the insurance system.
It is anticipated that the information requested by the proposed changes described above will be available to the plan and will merely require that the plan insert information it already has into the attachments described.
PBGC estimates that it will receive approximately 23,700 Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF filings per year under this collection of information. PBGC further estimates that the total annual burden of this collection of information will be 1,300 hours and $1,613,000.
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• 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 methodologies 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,
Issued in Washington, DC.
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 13, 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 13, 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 13, 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 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to increase the Priority Customer taker fee for regular orders in SPY, as discussed further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to increase the Priority Customer
Currently, the Exchange charges a taker fee for regular orders in Select Symbols
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Priority Customer taker fee for regular orders in SPY from $0.30 per contract to $0.34 per contract. This taker fee will remain unchanged for Select Symbols other than SPY.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase the Priority Customer taker fee for regular orders in SPY because the proposed fee remains lower than both the Priority Customer taker fees that the Exchange currently charges for other Select Symbols, including QQQ, IWM and VXX, and the fees charged to other market participants that remove liquidity on the Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for SPY, which is the most actively traded name on ISE, will continue to attract Priority Customer order flow in SPY to the benefit of all members that trade on the Exchange. The Exchange further notes that the proposed Priority Customer taker fee for SPY is still lower than the rate charged by one of the Exchange's competitors.
In addition, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer the proposed taker fee to Priority Customer orders. A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants on the Exchange whose behavior is substantially similar to that of market professionals, including Professional Customers, who will generally submit a higher number of orders than Priority Customers.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraphs (g)(8) and (g)(14) of Rule 11.11, Routing to Away Trade Centers, to expand the ability of Users
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Exchange Rule 11.11(g)(8) describes the ROOC routing option, under which Users may designate their orders for participation in the opening or closing process, in addition to the re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), of a primary listing market other than the Exchange, if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of such market.
IEX announced that it intends to become a primary listing exchange and support IEX-listed companies beginning in October 2017.
The Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments to paragraphs (g)(8) and (g)(14) of Rule 11.11 as well as Rules 11.7(c)(1) and 13.4(a)to reflect the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The non-substantive amendments to paragraphs (g)(8) and (g)(14) of Rule 11.11 as well as Rules 11.7(c)(1) and 13.4(a) to reflect the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American and BATS Exchange, Inc. to Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. also removes impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it updates the rule to reflect the name change and does not alter the way in which orders in NYSE American listed securities are handled and routed.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that its proposal would increase competition because it offers Users an alternative means to route orders to participate in IEX's opening, closing, and re-opening following a halt, suspension, or pause as if they entered orders on that market directly.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions and extensions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than November 20, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than October 19, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, Department of State, hereby gives notice that the Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs) study group of the Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) will hold a public meeting via teleconference to discuss the next session of the UNCITRAL Working Group I scheduled for October 16-20 in Vienna. This is not a meeting of the full Advisory Committee.
UNCITRAL has established a working group aimed at reducing the legal obstacles faced by MSMEs throughout their life cycle, and in particular those in developing countries. UNCITRAL further directed that the work should start with a focus on the legal issues surrounding the simplification of registration and incorporation. At its upcoming session, the UNCITRAL Working Group I will consider a draft legislative guide on key principles of business registration (UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.I/WP.106) and an introductory paper prepared by the Secretariat entitled “Reducing the legal obstacles faced by MSMEs” (UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.I/WP.107). The draft texts, along with the reports of earlier sessions of the Working Group will be available at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
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, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. 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 involved and must be received on or before October 10, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0133 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twenty Second Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Twenty Second Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee. The NAC is a subcommittee to Federal advisory committee, RTCA.
The meeting will be held October 4, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: United Airlines Headquarters, The
Andy Cebula, NAC Secretariat, (202) 330-0652,
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 Twenty Second Meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC). The agenda will include the following:
Although the NAC meeting is open to the public, the meeting location has limited space and security protocols that require advanced registration. To attend: Please email
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 Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 29 individuals from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on July 7, 2017. The exemptions expire on July 7, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On June 6, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from 29 individuals requesting an exemption from diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and requested comments from the public (82 FR 26226). The public comment period ended on July 6, 2017, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the program eligibility criteria and an individualized assessment of information submitted by each applicant.
These 29 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 37 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 6, 2017,
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keeping a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 29 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Announcement of advisory committee public meeting.
FMCSA announces a meeting of its Medical Review Board (MRB) on Tuesday and Wednesday, September 26-27, 2017. The MRB will make recommendations to the Agency on the revision of the Agency's handbook for medical examiners (ME) who are on the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (National Registry), for their use in evaluating interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers for a medical qualification determination. Additionally, the MRB will review the Agency's current advisory and exemption program criteria concerning individuals taking anti-seizure medication and identify factors the Agency should consider for potential regulatory actions that would eliminate the need for granting exemptions. The meeting is open to the public for its entirety. The public will be allowed to comment during the proceedings.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, September 26-27, 2017, from 9:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (E.T.), at the FMCSA National Training Center, 1310 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA, 6th Floor. Copies of the task statement and an agenda for the entire meeting will be made available in advance of the meeting at
Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-5221,
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Eran Segev at (617) 494-3174,
The MRB is composed of five medical experts who each serve two-year terms. Section 4116 of SAFETEA-LU requires the Secretary of Transportation, with the advice of the MRB and the chief medical examiner, to establish, review, and revise “medical standards for operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.” The MRB operates in accordance with FACA under the terms of its charter, filed November 25, 2015.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition entitled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since the January 15, 2013, notice, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
In reaching the decision to grant exemption requests, FMCSA considers the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013,
The Agency's decision regarding exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the following: The root cause of the respective seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure history; the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure; the stability of each individual's treatment regimen; and the duration of time on or off anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency reviews the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to operate a CMV safely with a history of seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agencies (SDLAs).
Oral comments from the public will be heard during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman. Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by Wednesday, September 20, to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2008-0362 for the MRB using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 31 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0043 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The 31 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Ahles, 63, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ahles understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ahles meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Aranda, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Aranda understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Aranda meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Boggs, 56, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boggs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boggs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Chadwick, 65, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Chadwick understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Chadwick meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Mr. Coopey, 56, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the
Mr. Dworak, 57, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dworak understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dworak meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Gahr, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gahr understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gahr meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Giordano, 57, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Giordano understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Giordano meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Haddad, 34, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Haddad understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Haddad meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Hartley, 33, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hartley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hartley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Maine.
Mr. Hobbs, 22, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hobbs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hobbs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Jaworski, 22, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jaworski understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jaworski meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Jernstad, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jernstad understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jernstad meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Julius, 76, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Julius understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Julius meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Kinsey, 39, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kinsey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kinsey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from South Carolina.
Mr. Klein, 60, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Klein understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Klein meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Montana.
Mr. Knighten, 66, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Knighten understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Knighten meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oregon.
Mr. Ligman, 63, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ligman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ligman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Miller, 62, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Miller, 69, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Miller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Nelson, 44, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nelson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nelson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Northum, 61, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Northum understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Ortiz, 68, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ortiz understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ortiz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oregon.
Mr. Rexford, 79, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rexford understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rexford meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Richardson, 66, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Richardson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Richardson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.
Mr. Richardson, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Richardson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Richardson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Rivera-Nieves, 53, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rivera-Nieves understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rivera-Nieves meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Connecticut.
Mr. Savage, 34, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Savage understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Savage meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Ms. Thomas, 27, has had ITDM since 1998. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Thomas understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from South Carolina.
Mr. Ward, 67, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ward understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ward meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Young, 47, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date's section of the notice.
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 that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 125 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On July 18, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 125 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 32919). The public comment period ended on August 17, 2017 and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 125 renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(10):
As of August 8, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 49 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 33990; 66 FR 41654; 67 FR 15662; 67 FR 37907; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570; 68 FR 44837; 69 FR 26206; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 61292; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 25878; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 41811; 71 FR 26601; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 62147; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 8417; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 28093; 72 FR 36099; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR 20253; 74 FR 26461; 74 FR 26466; 74 FR 28094; 74 FR 34395; 74 FR 34630; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 66423; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77492; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 7894; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 9865; 76 FR 17481; 76 FR 18824; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 20078; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 25762; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 29024; 76 FR 29026; 76 FR 37168; 76 FR 37173; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44652; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 74273; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 10251; 78 FR 14410; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 20376; 78 FR 20379; 78 FR 24300; 78 FR 24798; 78 FR 27281; 78 FR 30954; 78 FR 34141; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 41188; 78 FR 46407; 78 FR 51269; 78 FR 56993; 78 FR 57679; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 24298; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 64001; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 15863; 80 FR 16500; 80 FR 18696; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 25766; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 26320; 80 FR 29149; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 31636; 80 FR 31957; 80 FR 33007; 80 FR 35699; 80 FR 36395; 80 FR 36398; 80 FR 37718; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48404; 80 FR 48409; 80 FR 48413):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26653; FMCSA-2007-2663; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0372; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0057; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2013-0021; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0027; FMCSA-2013-0028; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048; FMCSA-2015-0049; FMCSA-2015-0052. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 8, 2017, and will expire on August 8, 2019.
As of August 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following four satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 31636; 80 FR 48413):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2005-21254. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 10, 2017, and will expire on August 10, 2019.
As of August 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following six individuals satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (76 FR 37169; 76 FR 50318; 79 FR 4531; 80 FR 41548):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0140. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 12, 2017, and will expire on August 12, 2019.
As of August 13, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 40122; 80 FR 62163):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0053. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 13, 2017, and will expire on August 13, 2019.
As of August 15, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR 37197; 68 FR 44837; 68 FR 48989; 70 FR 41811; 70 FR 42615; 72 FR 40360; 74 FR 34632; 76 FR 49531; 79 FR 4531; 80 FR 44185):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-15268. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 15, 2017, and will expire on August 15, 2019.
As of August 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 21 individuals satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (76 FR 29022; 76 FR 44082; 78 FR 20376; 78 FR 34141; 78 FR 34143; 78 FR 51268; 78 FR 52602):
The drivers were included in one of the following docket numbers: FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0029. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 23, 2017, and will expire on August 23, 2019.
As of August 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 20 individuals satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 44188; 80 FR 62161):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0055. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 25, 2017, and will expire on August 25, 2019.
As of August 29, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following three individuals satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 44188; 80 FR 62161): James Howard (CA), Ramon Melendez (NJ), Jesse A. Nosbush (MN).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0055. Their exemptions are applicable as of August 29, 2017, and will expire on August 29, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requests public comment on an application from YRC Worldwide Inc. (YRCW) for an exemption from various provisions of the mandate to use electronic logging devices (ELDs).
Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2017-0248 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-4325, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
YRCW is requesting an exemption (1) to allow an alternative ELD phase-in method for fleets using compliant automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs); (2) from the requirement that an ELD automatically record certain data elements upon a duty status change when a driver is not in the vehicle; (3) to allow ELDs to be configured with a special driving mode for yard moves that does not require the driver to re-input yard move status every time the tractor is powered off; and (4) to allow vehicle movements of less than one mile on YRCW property by non-CDL YRCW drivers to be annotated as “on property—other.” YRCW believes that the requested temporary exemptions will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section 4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments 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
YRCW is a holding company that, through its operating companies, offers its customers a wide range of transportation services. Its operating companies include YRC Freight (a North American less-than-truckload (LTL) company), and Holland, Reddaway, and New Penn (regional LRL companies). YRCW has applied for an exemption from various provisions of 49 CFR part 395 regarding the use of ELDs. Specifically, YRCW has requested a temporary exemption (1) to allow an alternative ELD phase-in method for fleets using compliant automatic on-board recording devices (AOBRDs); (2) from the requirement that an ELD automatically record certain data elements upon a duty status change when a driver is not in the vehicle; (3) to allow ELDs to be configured with a special driving mode for yard moves that does not require the driver to re-input yard move status every time the tractor is powered off; and (4) to allow vehicle movements of less than one mile conducted on YRCW property by non-CDL YRCW drivers to be annotated as “on property—other.”
YRCW states that its request is almost identical to an exemption application submitted by United Parcel Service (Ups) regarding the implementation and use of ELDs (see Docket FMCSA-2017-0054), and notes that it filed comments in support of the UPS application on July 7, 2017.
A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
Subject to limited exceptions, section 395.8(a)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs requires motor carriers to install and use ELDs that comply with the technical specifications prescribed for those devices no later than December 18, 2017. However, section 395.8(a)(1)(ii) allows a motor carrier that installs, and requires its drivers to use, compliant AOBRDs before the December 18, 2017, compliance date to continue to use those AOBRDs until December 16, 2019, thereby providing a 2-year grandfather period for devices installed prior to the compliance date.
In support of its application, YRCW states:
Like UPS, current requirements restricting the use of new AOBRDs in the transition period would cause company drivers to operate a “mixed fleet” of AOBRDs and ELDs. A “mixed fleet” introduces significant training challenges and inefficiencies. Groups of driver employees at terminals lead safety training with guidance from issue experts. As such, in addition to the training challenges highlighted by UPS, under the current rule a “mixed fleet” would result in the added complexity of peer-to-peer trainers being responsible for training both AOBRD and ELD systems.
Unlike UPS, YRCW's operating companies currently utilize paper logs. As such, the adoption of electronic logs is the single largest change in recording record of duty status in decades. Many of our drivers are long-tenured and may face challenges in adopting a new system. Since operational flexibility does not allow a driver to be assigned a tractor, a `mixed fleet” scenario forces drivers to be trained to use both AOBRD and ELD systems and introduce more complexity, errors, and challenges for all stakeholders.
Based on the above, for YRCW operating companies who plan to operate AOBRDs past December 18, 2017, YRCW requests an exemption from section 395(a)(1)(i) to allow the installation of AOBRDs on new truck tractors delivered to a facility after the December 18, 2017, compliance date, where existing vehicles at that facility are equipped with compliant AOBRDs.
An ELD is required to automatically record a number of specific data elements at certain events, to include (1) when a driver indicates a change of duty status under section 395.24(b) (see section 395.26(c)), and (2) when an authorized user logs into or out of an ELD (see section 395.26(g)).
In support of its application, YRCW states:
Similar to UPS, all drivers at YRC Freight, Holland and New Penn and a portion of drivers at Reddaway are covered by collective bargaining agreements. Almost all drivers clock in through an electronic system when they begin their day. Once clocked in they are required to perform non-driving duties as defined by collective bargaining agreements and company policies. As such, YRCW requests the same exemption as stated by UPS in Docket 2017-0054 on behalf of its operating companies.
Based on the above, YRCW requests an exemption from the requirement to record the specific data elements identified in sections 395.26(c) and
Section 395.28(a) of the FMCSRs permits a motor carrier to configure an ELD to authorize a driver to indicate that the driver is operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) under certain special driving categories, including (1) authorized personal use, and (2) and yard moves. Section 395.28(a)(2) requires a driver to select the applicable special driving category on the ELD before the start of the status, and to deselect it when the indicated status ends.
In support of its application, YRCW states:
Like UPS, almost all drivers for YRCW operating companies are covered by a collective bargaining agreement which sets out a contractual agreement that specifies which categories of drivers may perform certain driving duties such as coupling, uncoupling and moving equipment around company yards. The ability to select a “yard move” status will eliminate multiple unnecessary entries. Like UPS, the facilities of YRCW's operating companies maintain posted speed and will be “geo-fenced.” YRCW proposes that driving status should be activated once a vehicle reaches 20mph or above and/or exits the facility. In addition to making drivers more efficient, allowing the “yard move” status eliminates driver distractions and enables them to focus on safely operating vehicles in the yard.
Based on the above, YRCW requests an exemption from section 395.28(a)(2)(i) to allow its drivers to select “yard move” status and remain in that status even if the vehicle's ignition is cycled off and back on. Under the proposed temporary exemption, and assuming that the driver does not go off duty after performing the yard moves, YRCW states that the ELD would switch to a “driving” duty status under section 395.24 if (1) the driver inputs “driving,” (2) the vehicle exceeds 20 mph, or (3) the vehicle exits the geo-fenced yard.
Section 395.26(h) of the FMCSRs requires an ELD to automatically record certain data elements when a CMV's engine is powered up or powered down.
In support of its application, YRCW states:
YRCW operating companies have exempt employees, without commercial driver's licenses, who move vehicles within our company yards for various purposes, including fueling, washing and maintenance. Vehicles will not be equipped with permanently attached ELD or AOBRD systems, nor will these drivers be assigned portable devices. As a result, exempt individuals will not have the ability to input data into an AOBRD or ELD device. As with UPS, these trips are under one mile and move less than 20mph on company property. Based on our similar operational practices and needs, YRCW companies requests the same exemption as requested by UPS, with the understanding that movements in the yard will not be limited to washing and fueling.
Based on the above, YRCW requests an exemption from section 395.26, and proposes to allow an alternative approach to track vehicle usage by certain yard employees on YRCW property. Specifically, YRCW proposes that vehicle usage of less than 1 mile by these exempt employees, conducted entirely on YRCW property, be annotated on an ELD as “on property—other.” YRCW states that these miles could be easily identified using geo-fencing and time-card information for road drivers and other employees.
As noted in its application, YRCW believes that each of the requested exemptions will result in substantial operational efficiencies, and will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemptions.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on YRCW's application for an exemption from 49 CFR part 395. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the “Addresses” section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the form List of Data (A) and List of Data (B).
Written comments should be received on or before November 20, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Investigative Inquiry Forms.
Written comments should be received on or before November 20, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, 200 Third Street A4-A, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. Additionally, OFAC is publishing an update to the identifying information of persons currently included in the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On September 14, 2017, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. ABOUZAID EL BAYEH, Salime, Paseo de los Virreyes 951-A20, Fraccionamiento Virreyes, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 28 Nov 1983; POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Gender Female; C.U.R.P. AOBS831128MJCBYL09 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: COMERCIALIZADORA TRADE CLEAR, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO DE ALTA ESPECIALIDAD FARMACEUTICA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: LOS CUINIS; Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act), 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Abigael GONZALEZ VALENCIA, LOS CUINIS, and CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION.
2. CORONA ROMERO, Alfonso (a.k.a. “Chef Poncho Corona”), Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 28 Feb 1965; POB Magdalena, Jalisco, Mexico; Gender Male; R.F.C. CORA-650228-4Q0 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. CORA650228HJCRML06 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: OPERADORA LOS FAMOSOS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION; Linked To: LOS CUINIS). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION and LOS CUINIS.
3. CORONA ROBLES, Edgar Alfonso (a.k.a. “Ponchito Corona”), C. Rejoneador 6811, Col. Hacienda del Tepeyac, Zapopan, Jalisco 45050, Mexico; Ottawa Num. Ext. 1568 Int. 4 y 5, Providencia, Seccion 1A, 2A y 3A, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44630, Mexico; DOB 25 May 1987; POB Magdalena, Jalisco, Mexico; Gender Male; R.F.C. CORE-870525-AHA (Mexico); C.U.R.P. CORE870525HJCRBD04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: OPERADORA LOS FAMOSOS, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION; Linked To: LOS CUINIS). Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, CARTEL DE JALISCO NUEVA GENERACION and LOS CUINIS.
1. COMERCIALIZADORA TRADE CLEAR, S.A. DE C.V. (a.k.a. BAKE AND KITCHEN), Av. Naciones Unidas 6875, Zapopan, Jalisco 45017, Mexico; Patria No. 1347-1, Col. Mirador del Sol, Zapopan, Jalisco CP 45054, Mexico; Web site
2. GRUPO DE ALTA ESPECIALIDAD FARMACEUTICA, S.A. DE C.V., Av. Vallarta No. 3133, Col. Vallarta Poniente, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44110, Mexico; Toltecas 3579, Colonia Santa Rita, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; R.F.C. GAE-060123-3TA (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Salime ABOUZAID EL BAYEH.
3. OPERADORA DE REPOSTERIAS Y RESTAURANTES, S.A. DE C.V., Naciones Unidas 6875 B9C, Virreyes Residencial, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Folio Mercantil No. 85508 (Mexico) [SDNTK]. Designated pursuant to section 805(b)(3) of the Kingpin Act, 21 U.S.C. 1904(b)(3), for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, Silvia Romina SANCHEZ CARLON.
4. OPERADORA LOS FAMOSOS, S.A. DE C.V. (a.k.a. KENZO SUSHI; a.k.a. OPERADORA LOS FAMOSOS, S.A.P.I. DE C.V.), Calle Ottawa #1568 T, Plaza Fusion Galerias, Colonia Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Av. Providencia 1568, Providencia, Guadalajara, Jalisco 44630, Mexico; Web site
Additionally, on September 14, 2017, OFAC updated the SDN List for the following persons, whose property and interests in property continue to be blocked under the Kingpin Act.
1. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jeniffer Beaney (a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jennifer Beaney; a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZAREZ, Jeniffer Beaney), Sendero De Los Olmos 110, Zapopan, Jalisco 45129, Mexico; 4850 ch de la Cote-Saint-Luc, Montreal, Quebec H3W 2H2, Canada; Calle 12 de Diciembre #480, Colonia Chapalita, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 01 Feb 1979; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; C.U.R.P. CACJ790201MSLMZN03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AG & CARLON, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO DIJEMA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: AGRICOLA BOREAL S.P.R. DE R.L.).
2. SANCHEZ CARLON, Silvia Romina, Calle Alberta No. 2166, Fraccionamiento Los Colomos, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Av. Balam Kanche Mza. 30, Lote 002, Condominio Playa Car Fase II, Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo 77710, Mexico; Calle 12 de Diciembre #480, Colonia Chapalita, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 22 Dec 1986; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; R.F.C. SACS-861222-PH0 (Mexico); C.U.R.P. SACS861222MSLNRL04 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AHOME REAL ESTATE, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: CONSULTORIA INTEGRAL LA FUENTE, SOCIEDAD CIVIL; Linked To: INTERCORP LEGOCA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: LA FIRMA MIRANDA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: XAMAN HA CENTER; Linked To: AGRICOLA BOREAL S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: AGRICOLA TAVO S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: DESARROLLO AGRICOLA ORGANICO S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: DESARROLLO AGRICOLA VERDE DE SAYULA S.P.R. DE R.L.).
1. LAS FLORES CABANAS (a.k.a. CABANAS LAS FLORES), Km 5.4 Carretera Tapalpa—San Gabriel, Tapalpa, Jalisco 49340, Mexico; Web site
2. PLAZA LOS TULES, Av. Naciones Unidas # 6875, Fracc. Vista del Tule, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Av. Naciones Unidas # 6895, Fracc. Vista del Tule, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico [SDNTK].
The listings for these previously designated persons now appear as follows:
1. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jeniffer Beaney (a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZARES, Jennifer Beaney; a.k.a. CAMACHO CAZAREZ, Jeniffer Beaney), Sendero De Los Olmos 110, Zapopan, Jalisco 45129, Mexico; 4850 ch de la Cote-Saint-Luc, Montreal, Quebec H3W 2H2, Canada; Calle 12 de Diciembre #480, Colonia Chapalita, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 01 Feb 1979; POB Ahome, Sinaloa, Mexico; C.U.R.P. CACJ790201MSLMZN03 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: AG & CARLON, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: GRUPO DIJEMA, S.A. DE C.V.; Linked To: AGRICOLA BOREAL S.P.R. DE R.L.; Linked To: COMERCIALIZADORA TRADE CLEAR, S.A. DE C.V.).
2. SANCHEZ CARLON, Silvia Romina, Calle Alberta No. 2166,
1. LAS FLORES CABANAS (n.k.a. CABANAS LA LOMA; a.k.a. CABANAS LAS FLORES), Km 5.4 Carretera Tapalpa—San Gabriel, Tapalpa, Jalisco 49340, Mexico; Web site
2. PLAZA LOS TULES (a.k.a. PLAZA VIRREYES), Av. Naciones Unidas # 6875, Fracc. Vista del Tule, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Av. Naciones Unidas # 6895, Fracc. Vista del Tule, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; Web site
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee will meet on October 23-24, 2017. The meeting will be held in the Sonny Montgomery Conference Room 230 at 810 Vermont Ave NW., Washington, DC 20420. Both sessions will begin at 9:00 a.m. (EST) each day. The session on October 23 will adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m. The session on the October 24 will adjourn at approximately 2:00 p.m. The meetings are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on matters related to: Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors across all generations, relationships, and Veterans status; the use of VA care and benefits services by Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors, and possible expansion of such care and benefits services; Veterans' family, caregiver, and survivor experiences; VA policies, regulations, and administrative requirements related to the transition of Servicemembers from the Department of Defense (DoD) to enrollment in VA that impact Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors; and factors that influence access to, quality of, and accountability for services and benefits for Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors.
On October 23 and October 24, the agenda will include information briefings from the three VA Administrations and special program offices, as well as opening remarks from VA senior leaders including the Chief Veterans Experience Officer and the Committee Chair. Committee members will also discuss the committee work plan and future activities. Public comments will be received at 9:00 a.m. on October 24, 2017.
Individuals wishing to speak should contact Laureen Barone at
Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a photo I.D. must be presented at the Guard's Desk as a part of the clearance process. To prevent delays, you should allow an additional 30 minutes before the meeting begins to clear security. If you are interested in attending, please submit your name to Ms. Laureen Barone by October 19, 2017 to help expedite the security clearance process. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Ms. Barone at (716) 834-9200 extension 5350 or at
| 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 |