| Page Range | 43827-44052 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 43864 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2017 Annual Review | |
| 82 FR 43950 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 82 FR 44003 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43965 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43873 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Iiwi (Drepanis coccinea) | |
| 82 FR 43897 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Sonoyta Mud Turtle | |
| 82 FR 43951 - Extension of the Application Deadline Date for the Fiscal Year 2017; Promise Neighborhoods Program Grant Application | |
| 82 FR 43885 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Pearl Darter | |
| 82 FR 43933 - National Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 43842 - Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on Filing Requirements; Correction | |
| 82 FR 43845 - Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Spirulina Extract; Confirmation of Effective Date | |
| 82 FR 44023 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Training/Internship Placement Plan | |
| 82 FR 43964 - Compliance Date Extension; Statutory Requirements for Substantiation of Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) | |
| 82 FR 44003 - NASA Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44025 - International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods | |
| 82 FR 43983 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 82 FR 43944 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43945 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43935 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Survey of Housing Starts, Sales, and Completions | |
| 82 FR 43934 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Pilot of USPS Postal Carriers as Census Enumerators During the 2018 End-to-End Census Test | |
| 82 FR 44006 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on NuScale; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44021 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of Florida | |
| 82 FR 43952 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Granting of Interim Waiver | |
| 82 FR 44024 - Designation of Brandon-Lee Thulsie, aka Sallahuddin Thulsie, aka Salahuddin ibn Hernani as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 44023 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Tony-Lee Thulsie, aka Yakeen Thulsie, aka Yaqeen ibn Hernani, aka Yakeen, aka Simba as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 82 FR 43936 - Titanium Sponge From Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 82 FR 43939 - Titanium Sponge From Japan and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations | |
| 82 FR 44007 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 44022 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of Florida | |
| 82 FR 43946 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 44021 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 43858 - Vessel Documentation Regulations-Technical Amendments | |
| 82 FR 43992 - Agency Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) | |
| 82 FR 44001 - Wire Rod From Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 82 FR 43999 - Biodiesel From Argentina and Indonesia; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations | |
| 82 FR 43961 - Red Dirt Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 43959 - SunSea Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 43958 - Rock Creek Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 43961 - Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Morgan City and Youngsville Compression Station Abandoment Project | |
| 82 FR 43958 - Florida Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Wekive Parkway Relocation Project | |
| 82 FR 43960 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 43950 - Notice of Extension of Scoping Period for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Northwest Training and Testing | |
| 82 FR 43844 - Repeal of Regulations Governing the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program | |
| 82 FR 43949 - Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43985 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 43991 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 44023 - U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44004 - Arts Advisory Panel Meetings | |
| 82 FR 43965 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10209-Beach First National Bank, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina | |
| 82 FR 43932 - Information Collection: Public Lands Corps Participant Tracking Sheet | |
| 82 FR 44021 - Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the State of Utah | |
| 82 FR 44022 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Hawaii | |
| 82 FR 43966 - Appraisal Subcommittee; Proposed Revised Policy Statements | |
| 82 FR 44036 - Freedom of Information Act Regulations | |
| 82 FR 44044 - Privacy Act Regulations | |
| 82 FR 44006 - Hispanic Council on Federal Employment | |
| 82 FR 44028 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Insurance Customer Satisfaction Surveys | |
| 82 FR 44032 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Servicer's Staff Appraisal Reviewer (SAR) Application | |
| 82 FR 44029 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department Of Veteran Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.236-91 | |
| 82 FR 44030 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Department of Veteran Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clauses 852.237-7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance; 852.228-71, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance; and 852.207-70, Report of Employment Under Commercial Activities | |
| 82 FR 44027 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Matured Endowment Notification | |
| 82 FR 44032 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Supporting Statement Regarding Marriage | |
| 82 FR 44029 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Veteran/Servicemembers Supplemental Application for Assistance in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing | |
| 82 FR 44028 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Veteran's Supplemental Claim Application | |
| 82 FR 43957 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 43960 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 44004 - River Bend Station, Unit 1 | |
| 82 FR 43998 - Foreign Endangered and Threatened Species; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 82 FR 43908 - Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; Exemption for Large U.S. Longline Vessels To Fish in Portions of the American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area; Court Order | |
| 82 FR 43926 - International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2017 | |
| 82 FR 44006 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 43948 - U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43944 - Marine Mammals; File Nos. 21217 and 21397 | |
| 82 FR 43946 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 43994 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 44031 - Special Medical Advisory Group; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44002 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 44026 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 82 FR 44020 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas | |
| 82 FR 44010 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments, To Adopt a Consolidated Audit Trail Fee Dispute Resolution Process | |
| 82 FR 44018 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility | |
| 82 FR 44008 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule | |
| 82 FR 44014 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Correct an Inadvertent Marking Error in the Fees Schedule | |
| 82 FR 44016 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List | |
| 82 FR 44013 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Third Party Developer Fees From the Schedule of Fees | |
| 82 FR 44022 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico | |
| 82 FR 43984 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 43988 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 43990 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 43964 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Financing Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects Pursuant to the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act | |
| 82 FR 44024 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Disposal of 57 Acres of Airport Land at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester, NH | |
| 82 FR 44025 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on a Land Use Change From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use for 18.6 Acres of Airport Land for Solar Farm Use at North Central Airport, Smithfield, RI | |
| 82 FR 43827 - Special Conditions: Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature | |
| 82 FR 43840 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 44031 - Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44027 - Notice of Open Public Meetings; Correction | |
| 82 FR 43933 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 43995 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Discrimination Information Form (“HUD-903.1”) | |
| 82 FR 43997 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Contractor's Mortgagor's Cost Breakdowns and Certifications | |
| 82 FR 43993 - Notice of Availability of Final Policy Document | |
| 82 FR 43996 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment on the: ConnectHome Expansion Data Collection | |
| 82 FR 43925 - Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) | |
| 82 FR 43846 - Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) | |
| 82 FR 43926 - Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 43848 - Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 43962 - Clean Water Act; Contractor Access to Confidential Business Information | |
| 82 FR 43920 - Use of Truncated Taxpayer Identification Numbers on Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, Furnished to Employees | |
| 82 FR 43947 - Army Education Advisory Subcommittee Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 43910 - Community Reinvestment Act Regulations | |
| 82 FR 43850 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District | |
| 82 FR 43829 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43835 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43837 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43832 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 43962 - Interim Registration Review Decision for 22 Sulfonylurea Pesticides; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 43865 - Permitting Radar Services in the 76-81 GHz Band |
Forest Service
Rural Housing Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Parole Commission
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE), Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. This engine model will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an additional takeoff rating that maintains takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Effective September 20, 2017.
Tara Fitzgerald, AIR-6A1, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5213; telephone (781) 238-7130; facsimile (781) 238-7199; email
Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as SAE, applied for a type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. On April 30, 2014, SAE requested an extension to their original type certificate application, which the FAA granted through June 30, 2015. On May 26, 2015, SAE requested another extension to their type certificate application, which the FAA granted through September 30, 2018.
SAE proposed an additional takeoff rating that maintains takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions with all engines operating (AEO) for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Therefore, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model would have two different takeoff ratings. The first rating corresponds with the rated takeoff thrust of the engine. The second rating maintains the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions. This additional takeoff rating is named “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT). The “Rated TOTHAT” is an approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation for a maximum usage of 20 minutes in any one flight.
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, SAE must show that the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 33, amendments 33-1 through 33-34 in effect on the date of application. The FAA has determined that the applicable airworthiness regulations in part 33 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model because of their novel and unusual design feature referred to as “Rated TOTHAT”. Therefore, these special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 11.19 and 14 CFR 21.16, and will become part of the type certification basis for Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine models in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2).
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the engine model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that engine model be amended later to include any other engine model(s) that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other engine models under § 21.101.
In addition to complying with the applicable product airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model must comply with the fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34.
The Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, referred to as “Rated TOTHAT”. This additional takeoff rating increases the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) limit that maintains takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight.
The “Rated TOTHAT” is designed for use during takeoff in specified high altitudes and high ambient temperature conditions. It maintains thrust during takeoff for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight. These special conditions contain additional mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance action requirements associated with any use of the “Rated TOTHAT”. These requirements add a rating definition in paragraph 1.1 below and mandate required inspections in the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA); instructions for installing and operating the engine; engine rating and operating limitations; instrument connection; and endurance testing.
The current requirements of the endurance test under 14 CFR 33.87 represent a typical airplane flight profile and the severity of the takeoff rating. Therefore, the endurance test under § 33.87 covers normal, AEO takeoff conditions for which the engine control system limits the engine to the takeoff thrust rating. It is intended to represent
These special conditions require additional test cycles that include at least a 150 hours of engine operation as specified in § 33.87(a), to demonstrate the engine is capable of performing the “Rated TOTHAT” rating during AEO conditions without disassembly or modification.
The associated engine deterioration, after use of the “Rated TOTHAT”, is not known without the intervening mandatory inspections in these special conditions. These mandatory inspections ensure the engine will continue to comply with its certification basis, which includes these special conditions, after any use of the “Rated TOTHAT”. The applicant is expected to assess the deterioration from use of the “Rated TOTHAT”. The airworthiness limitations section (ALS) must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the “Rated TOTHAT”.
These requirements maintain a level of safety equivalent to the level intended by the applicable airworthiness standards in effect on the date of application.
Notice of proposed special conditions No. 33-17-01-SC for the SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature engine model was published in the
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Should SAE apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only the “Rated TOTHAT” features on Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine models. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to SAE who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.
Aircraft, Engines, Aviation Safety, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model.
“Rated Take-off Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under one engine inoperative (OEI) conditions or 5 minutes each under all engines operating (AEO) conditions in any one flight for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the “Rated TOTHAT” is used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.
In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33, effective February 1, 1965, which are applicable to the engine and the “Rated TOTHAT”, the following special conditions apply:
(a) Section 33.4, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
(1) The ALS must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the “Rated TOTHAT”.
(2) The applicant must validate the adequacy of the inspections and maintenance actions required under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.
(3) The applicant must establish an in-service engine evaluation program to ensure the continued adequacy of the instructions for mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions prescribed under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions, and of the data for thrust assurance procedures required by paragraph 2(b)(2) of these special conditions. The program must include service engine tests or equivalent service engine test experience on engines of similar design and evaluations of service usage of the “Rated TOTHAT”.
(b) Section 33.5, Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.
(1) Installation Instructions:
(i) The applicant must identify the means, or provisions for means, provided in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2(e) of these special conditions.
(ii) The applicant must specify that the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the “Rated TOTHAT” level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.
(iii) The applicant must specify that the “Rated TOTHAT” is available by manual crew selection at specified altitudes and temperatures in AEO conditions.
(2)
(c) Section 33.7, Engine ratings and operating limitations.
(1) “Rated TOTHAT” and the associated operating limitations are established as follows:
(i) The thrust is the same as the engine takeoff rated thrust with extended flat rating corner point.
(ii) The rotational speed limits are the same as those associated with the engine takeoff rated thrust.
(iii) The applicant must establish a gas temperature steady-state limit and, if necessary, a transient gas over temperature limit for which the duration is no longer than 30 seconds.
(iv) The use is limited to two periods of no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the “Rated TOTHAT” is used must be followed by mandatory inspections and maintenance actions prescribed by paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.
(2) The applicant must propose language to include in the type certificate data sheet specified in 14 CFR 21.41 for the following:
(i) “Rated TOTHAT” and associated limitations.
(ii) As required by 14 CFR 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI
(iii) As required by § 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that “the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the “Rated TOTHAT” level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures, and the “Rated TOTHAT” is available by manual selection when all engines are operational during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.”
(d) Section 33.28, Engine Control Systems.
The engine must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic availability and automatic control of the “Rated TOTHAT” under OEI conditions and must permit manual activation of the “Rated TOTHAT” under AEO conditions.
(e) Section 33.29, Instrument connection.
The engine must:
(1) Have means, or provisions for means, to alert the pilot when the “Rated TOTHAT” is in use, when the event begins and when the time interval expires.
(2) Have means, or provision for means, which cannot be reset in flight, to:
(i) Automatically record each use and duration of the “Rated TOTHAT”, and
(ii) Alert maintenance personnel that the engine has been operated at the “Rated TOTHAT” and permit retrieval of recorded data.
(3) Have means, or provision for means, to enable routine verification of the proper operation of the means in paragraph 2(e)(1) and (e)(2) of these special conditions.
(f) Section 33.85(b), Calibration tests.
The applicant must base the calibration test on the thrust check at the end of the endurance test required by § 33.87 of these special conditions.
(g) Section 33.87, Endurance test.
(1) In addition to the applicable requirements of § 33.87(a):
(i) The § 33.87 endurance test must be modified as follows:
(A) Modify the 30 minute test cycle at the rated takeoff thrust in § 33.87(b)(2)(ii) to run one minute at rated takeoff thrust, followed by five minutes at the “Rated TOTHAT”, followed by the rated takeoff thrust for the remaining twenty-four minutes.
(B) The modified 30 minute period described above in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i)(A) must be repeated ten times in cycles 16 through 25 of the § 33.87 endurance test.
(2) After completion of the tests required by § 33.87(b), as modified in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i) above, and without intervening disassembly, except as needed to replace those parts described as consumables in the ICA, the applicant must conduct the following test sequence for a total time of not less than 120 minutes:
(i) Ten minutes at “Rated TOTHAT”.
(ii) Eighty-eight minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.
(iii) One minute at 50 percent of rated takeoff thrust.
(iv) Ten minutes at “Rated TOTHAT”.
(v) Ten minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.
(vi) One minute at flight idle.
(3) The test sequence of §§ 33.87(b)(1) through (b)(6) of these special conditions must be run continuously. If a stop occurs during these tests, the interrupted sequence must be repeated unless the applicant shows that the severity of the test would not be reduced if the current tests were continued.
(4) Where the engine characteristics are such that acceleration to the “Rated TOTHAT” results in a transient over temperature in excess of the steady-state temperature limit identified in paragraph 2(c)(1)(iii) of these special conditions, the transient gas over temperature must be applied to each acceleration to the “Rated TOTHAT” of the test sequence in paragraph 2(g)(2) of these special conditions.
(h) Section 33.93, Teardown inspection.
The applicant must perform the teardown inspection required by § 33.93(a), after completing the endurance test prescribed by § 33.87 of these special conditions.
(i) Section 33.201, Design and test requirements for Early ETOPS eligibility.
In addition to the requirements of § 33.201(c)(1), the simulated ETOPS mission cyclic endurance test must include two cycles of 10 minute duration, each at the “Rated TOTHAT”; one before the last diversion cycle and one at the end of the ETOPS test.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-01, which applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2014-25-01 required modifying the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm and installing a new pivot pin retention mechanism. This AD instead requires modifying the NLG shock strut assembly. This AD was prompted by reports of discrepancies of a certain bolt at the pivot pin link, resulting in corrosion of the bolt. 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 Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7303; fax 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-25-01, Amendment 39-18042 (79 FR 73808, December 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-25-01”). AD 2014-25-01 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R2, dated December 21, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off. Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take-off or landing.
To prevent the potential failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification which includes a new retention bolt, a reverse orientation of the retention bolt and a rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity sensor cover to provide clearance for the re-oriented retention bolt.
Since the original issue of this [Canadian] AD [which corresponds to AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010)], there have been several reports of pivot pin retention bolts found missing or damaged. Additional investigation determined that the failures were caused by high contact stresses on the retention bolt due to excessive frictional torque on the pivot pin and an adverse tolerance condition at the retention bolt.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD mandated the installation of a new pivot pin retention mechanism.
Since the issuance of Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD, there have been reports of chrome peeling on special bolt part number 47205-1 at the pivot pin link resulting in corrosion of the bolt substrate layer.
Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of new special bolt part number 47205-3 with additional processing for increased chrome plating adhesion on aeroplanes equipped with nose landing gear shock strut assembly part number 47100-19 or any assembly with Bombardier (BA) Service Bulletin (SB) 84-32-110 incorporated. In addition, Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of a new pivot pin retention mechanism that includes new special bolt part number 47205-3 on aeroplanes equipped with nose landing gear shock strut assembly part number 47100-9, 47100-11, 47100-13, 47100-15, or 47100-17 without BA SB 84-32-110 incorporated. The corrective actions of Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD cancel and replace the corrective actions of Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD.
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.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International concurred with the intent of the NPRM.
Horizon Air asked that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to exclude the “Job Set-up” and “Close Out” sections of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, Revision A, dated October 18, 2016. Horizon Air stated that incorporating those sections as a requirement of the AD restricts an operator's ability to perform other maintenance in conjunction with incorporation of the referenced service information.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to require accomplishment of only paragraph 3.B., “Procedure” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, Revision A, dated October 18, 2016.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change 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.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, Revision A, dated October 18, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the NLG shock strut assembly by installing a new, improved pivot pin retention mechanism and a new retention bolt. 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 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it takes about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,840, or $170 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
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 25, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2014-25-01, Amendment 39-18042 (79 FR 73808, December 12, 2014).
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001, 4003 through 4533 inclusive, and 4535, equipped with any nose landing gear (NLG) shock strut assembly having part number 47100-9, 47100-11, 47100-13, 47100-15, 47100-17, or 47100-19.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of discrepancies of a certain bolt at the pivot pin link, resulting in corrosion of the bolt. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control or loss of an NLG tire during takeoff or landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Install a new pivot pin retention mechanism to the NLG shock strut assembly, and replace the existing pivot pin retention bolt with a new bolt, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, Revision A, dated October 18, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, dated July 26, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R2, dated December 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 Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7303; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, Revision A, dated October 18, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-02-12, which applied to all EADS CASA (now Airbus Defense and Space S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. AD 2013-02-12 required a one-time inspection to identify the correct polarity for each pair of electrical connectors on each engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and repair if necessary. This AD continues to require identifying the correct polarity of each pair of electrical connectors of the affected engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and doing a repair if necessary. This AD also requires modifying the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses. This AD was prompted by reports of incorrect electrical polarity connections on engine fire extinguishing discharge cartridges. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March 8, 2013 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013).
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-02-12, Amendment 39-17333 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013) (“AD 2013-02-12”). AD 2013-02-12 applied to all EADS CASA (now Airbus Defense and Space S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 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 2016-0201, dated October 11, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Reports have been received of finding wrong electrical polarity connections of engine fire extinguishing discharge cartridges on CASA CN-235 aeroplanes. The results of the subsequent investigation showed that the incorrect discharge cartridge assembly was caused by production line errors.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the actuation of the discharge cartridge in case of automatic fire detection or manual initiation in case of engine fire, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, EADS CASA (Airbus Military) developed instructions to identify erroneous wiring polarity installation and EASA issued AD 2012-0045 [which correlates to FAA AD 2013-02-12, Amendment 39-17333 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013)] to require a one-time inspection to verify proper electrical polarity of wiring of each engine fire extinguisher discharge cartridge and, depending on findings, corrective action.
Since [EASA] AD 2012-0045 was issued, Airbus Defence and Space (D&S) developed modification of the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses, available for in-service installation through Service Bulletin (SB) SB-235-26-0005, which represents technical solution for an unsafe condition addressed by [EASA] AD 2012-0045 for those aeroplanes. Embodiment of this modification introduces a design solution that avoids maintenance errors during (re)connecting of the affected fire extinguisher circuit harnesses after accomplishment of maintenance tasks or functional tests.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0045, which is superseded and
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 available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0005, dated July 9, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses.
We have also reviewed Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, Revision 01, dated November 12, 2013. This service information describes procedures for identifying the correct polarity of each pair of electrical connectors of the affected engine fire extinguisher cartridge, and repairing the erroneous wiring polarity if necessary.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repair that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:
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 25, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2013-02-12, Amendment 39-17333 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013) (“AD 2013-02-12”).
This AD applies to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of incorrect electrical polarity connections on engine fire extinguishing discharge cartridges. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect polarity connections, which could prevent the actuation of the discharge cartridge in case of automatic fire detection or manual initiation during a potential engine fire, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-02-12, with revised service information. Within 30 days after March 8, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-02-12), do a one-time inspection to identify the correct polarity for each pair of electrical connectors on each engine fire extinguisher cartridge, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, dated March 9, 2012; or Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, Revision 01, dated November 12, 2013.
As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Before further flight after accomplishing each maintenance task involving disconnection or reconnection of an electrical connector of an engine fire extinguisher cartridge, determine the polarity of each pair of electrical connectors of the affected engine fire extinguisher cartridge, in accordance with the Instructions of Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, Revision 01, dated November 12, 2013.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, erroneous wiring polarity installation is detected, before further flight, repair the erroneous polarity in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or EADS CASA's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the installation of the fire extinguisher circuit harnesses, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0005, dated July 9, 2014.
The modification required in paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the actions required in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0201, dated October 11, 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 Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; 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.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 25, 2017.
(i) Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, Revision 01, dated November 12, 2013.
(ii) EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-235-26-0005, dated July 9, 2014.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 8, 2013 (78 FR 7262, February 1, 2013).
(i) Airbus Military All Operator Letter 235-020, dated March 9, 2012.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; 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 all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support. This AD requires modifying the rudder pedal adjustment system. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 25, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF 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 2017-0036, dated February 21, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes. The MCAI states:
Failures were reported of the pedal control system support of CASA C-212 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigation revealed that the welding area of the affected support structure had broken.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the rudder control system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-212-27-0057 to provide modification instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the rudder pedal adjustment system.
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
• 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 Defense and Space S.A. has issued EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014. This service information describes procedures for modifying the rudder pedal adjustment system. 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 42 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 25, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, and C-212-DF airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the rudder pedal control system support and a determination that the welding area of the affected support structure had broken. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the rudder control system, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the rudder pedal adjustment system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0036, dated February 21, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; 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) EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0057, dated May 21, 2014.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2001-16-01, which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342 airplanes, and certain Model A340 series airplanes; and AD 2014-17-06, which applied to all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes. AD 2001-16-01 required inspections for cracking of the aft cargo compartment door, and corrective action if necessary. AD 2014-17-06 required revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate structural inspection requirements. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements; and removing airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective October 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 25, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of October 8, 2014 (79 FR 52181, September 3, 2014).
For service information identified in this final rule, 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 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2001-16-01, Amendment 39-12369 (66 FR 40874, August 6, 2001) (“AD 2001-16-01”), which applied to certain Airbus Model A330-301, -321, -322, -341, and -342 airplanes, and certain Model A340 series airplane; and AD 2014-17-06, Amendment 39-17959 (79 FR 52181, September 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-17-06”), which applied to all Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes, Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, and Model A330-300 series airplanes. AD 2014-17-06 superseded AD 2011-17-08, Amendment 39-16772 (76 FR 53303, August 26, 2011). 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 2016-0152, dated July 27, 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 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations are currently defined and published in the Airbus A330 and A340 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents.
The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), which are approved by EASA, are specified in Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 2. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition [fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in a certain structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
EASA issued AD 2012-0211 (for A330 aeroplanes) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-17-06] and AD 2013-0127 (for A340 aeroplanes) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2001-16-01] to require the actions as specified in Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 2 at original issue and Revision 01, respectively.
Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, Airbus issued Revision 01 and Revision 02, respectively, of Airbus A330 and A340 ALS Part 2, to introduce more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0211 and AD 2013-0127, which are superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A330 ALS Part 2 Revision 01 including Variation 1.1 and Variation 1.2, or A340 ALS Part 2 Revision 02 including Variation 2.1 and Variation 2.2, as applicable (hereafter collectively referred to as `the applicable ALS' in this [EASA] AD).
In addition, this [EASA] AD also supersedes DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France AD 2001-126(B), whose requirements applicable to A330 aeroplanes have been transferred into Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, and supersedes DGAC France AD 2001-124(B), EASA AD 2012-0031 and AD 2012-0167, whose requirements applicable to A340 aeroplanes have been transferred into Airbus A340 ALS Part 2 [EASA ADs 2001-124(B) and 2001-126(B) correspond with FAA AD 2001-16-01].
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 available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 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 airworthiness limitation requirements for damage-tolerant airworthiness limitation items. These documents are distinct since they provide different limitation requirements.
• Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Revision 01, issue 02, dated November 30, 2015.
• Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Variation 1.1, dated December 15, 2015.
• Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Variation 1.2, dated May 27, 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
We estimate that this AD affects 101 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2014-17-06, and retained in this AD, take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2014-17-06 is $85 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $8,585, or $85 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 25, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2001-16-01, Amendment 39-12369 (66 FR 40874, August 6, 2001) (“AD 2001-16-01”); and AD 2014-17-06, Amendment 39-17959 (79 FR 52181, September 3, 2014) (“AD 2014-17-06”).
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before May 27, 2016.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.
This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in a certain structure, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2014-17-06, with a new terminating action. Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Within 3 months after October 8, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-17-06): Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012; “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation reference 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012; and “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation reference 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013.
(2) Comply with all applicable instructions and airworthiness limitations included in Airbus Document AI/SE M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012; “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation reference 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012; and “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation reference 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013. The initial compliance times for the actions specified in Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012; “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation reference 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012; and “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013; are at the times specified in Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012; “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation ref. 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012; and “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation ref. 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013; or within 3 months after October 8, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-17-06), whichever occurs later.
This paragraph restates the provision in paragraph (j) of AD 2014-17-06, with a new terminating action. Compliance with tasks 533021-02-01, 533021-02-02, and 533021-02-03, specified in “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation ref. 0GVLG120022/C0S, dated December 21, 2012, may be used as a method of compliance to tasks 533021-01-01, 533021-01-02, 533021-01-03 specified in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of Section 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Airbus Document AI/SE M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012. Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the provision specified in this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2014-17-06, with a new exception. Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD and as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the actions specified in the service information referenced in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD are the times specified in the applicable service information, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD and the provision specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(1) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2, Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 01, issue 02, dated November 30, 2015.
(2) Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Variation 1.1, dated December 15, 2015.
(3) Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Variation 1.2, dated May 27, 2016.
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised, as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0152, dated July 27, 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.
(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 25, 2017.
(i) Airbus A330 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2, Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 01, issue 02, dated November 30, 2015.
(ii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Variation 1.1, dated December 15, 2015.
(iii) Airbus A330 ALS Part 2, DT-ALI, Variation 1.2, dated May 27, 2016.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 52181, September 3, 2014).
(i) Airbus Document AI/SE-M4/95A.0089/97, “A330 Airworthiness Limitation Items,” Issue 19, dated March 23, 2012.
(ii) Airbus “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation ref. 0GVLG130002/C01, dated March 26, 2013.
(iii) Airbus “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation ref. 0GVLG120018/C0S, dated October 24, 2012.
(iv) Airbus “Variation to Issue 19 of ALI Document (referenced in ALS Part 2) Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” variation ref. 0GVLG120022/C0S, dated December 21, 2012.
(5) 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
(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), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017.
Thomas J Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
Bureau of the Census, Commerce Department.
Correcting amendments.
On April 19, 2017, the Census Bureau revised the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR). The revisions to the FTR reflected the implementation of the International Trade Data System, in accordance with the Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for American Businesses. In the Final Rule, the Census Bureau also amended the appendices section. Appendices B, C, E, and F were removed and appendix D was revised and redesignated as the new appendix B. With the revisions to the appendices section, there are a few sections of the FTR that were inadvertently not updated to reflect these changes. This document corrects the final regulations.
Effective on September 20, 2017.
Dale C. Kelly, Chief, International Trade Management Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233-6010, by phone: (301) 763-6937, by fax: (301) 763-8835, or by email:
The Census Bureau is responsible for collecting, compiling, and publishing trade statistics for the United States under the provisions of Title 13 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, Section 301. The Census Bureau published a Final Rule in the
To comply with the requirements of the Foreign Relations Act, Public Law 107-228, the Census Bureau is amending relevant sections of the FTR to revise or clarify export reporting requirements. Therefore, the Census Bureau is correcting 15 CFR part 30 by making the following correcting amendments:
• Revise § 30.1(c) to replace the reference to appendix D with appendix B in the definition of “Exemption legend” because appendix D is redesignated as appendix B.
• Revise § 30.1(c) to replace the reference to appendix D with appendix B in the definition of “Postdeparture filing citation” because appendix D is redesignated as appendix B.
• Revise § 30.3(e)(2)(xi) to replace “Foreign port of unloading” with “Foreign port of unlading.”
• Revise § 30.4(b)(3) to replace “Foreign port of unloading” with “Foreign port of unlading.”
• Revise § 30.4(b)(4)(ii)(A) to replace the reference to appendix D with appendix B because appendix D is redesignated as appendix B.
• Revise § 30.6(a)(18) to remove the reference to appendix B because this appendix is removed from the FTR.
• Revise § 30.7(b) to replace the reference to appendix D with appendix B because appendix D is redesignated as appendix B.
• Revise § 30.8 introductory text to replace the reference to appendix D with appendix B because appendix D is redesignated as appendix B.
• Revise § 30.8(b) to replace the reference to § 30.46 with § 30.4(c)(2) for requirements for the filing of export information by pipeline carriers.
• Revise § 30.35 to replace the reference to appendix D with appendix B because appendix D is redesignated as appendix B.
• Revise appendix B, IX to replace the reference to § 30.40(d) with § 30.40(c).
Economic statistics, Exports, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 15 CFR part 30 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
5 U.S.C. 301; 13 U.S.C. 301-307; Reorganization plan No. 5 of 1990 (3 CFR 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1004); Department of Commerce Organization Order No. 35-2A, July 22, 1987, as amended, and No. 35-2B, December 20, 1996, as amended; Pub. L. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1350.
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(xi) Foreign port of unlading.
(b) * * *
(3) For shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico, the USPPI or authorized agent shall provide the proof of filing citation, postdeparture filing citation, AES downtime filing citation, exemption or exclusion legend to the exporting carrier by the time the shipment arrives at the port of unlading.
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Provide the appropriate downtime filing citation as described in § 30.7(b) and appendix B of this part; and
(a) * * *
(18)
(a) * * *
(b) For shipments other than USML, the USPPI or the authorized agent is responsible for annotating the proper proof of filing citation or exemption legend on the first page of the bill of lading, air waybill, export shipping instructions or other commercial loading documents. The USPPI or the authorized agent must provide the proof of filing citation or exemption legend to the exporting carrier. The carrier must annotate the proof of filing citation, exemption or exclusion legends on the carrier's outbound manifest when required. The carrier is responsible for presenting the appropriate proof of filing citation or exemption legend to CBP Port Director at the port of export as stated in subpart E of this part. Such presentation shall be without material change or amendment of the proof of filing citation, postdeparture filing citation, AES downtime filing citation, or exemption legend as provided to the carrier by the USPPI or the authorized agent. The proof of filing citation will identify that the export information has been accepted as transmitted. The postdeparture filing citation, AES downtime filing citation, or exemption legend will identify that no filing is required prior to export. The proof of filing citations, postdeparture filing citations, or exemption legends shall appear on the bill of lading, air waybill or other commercial loading documentation and shall be clearly visible. The AES filing citation, exemption or exclusion legends are provided for in appendix B of this part. The exporting carrier shall annotate the manifest or other carrier documentation with the AES filing citations, exemption or exclusions legends.
The following conditions govern the time and place to present proof of filing citations, postdeparture filing citations, AES downtime filing citation, exemption, or exclusion legends. The USPPI or the authorized agent is required to deliver the proof of filing citations, postdeparture filing citations, AES downtime filing citations, exemption, or exclusion legends required in § 30.7 to the exporting carrier. See appendix B of this part for the properly formatted proof of filing citations, exemption, or exclusion legends. Failure of the USPPI or the authorized agent of either the USPPI or FPPI to comply with these requirements constitutes a violation of the regulations in this part and renders such principal party or the authorized agent subject to the penalties provided for in subpart H of this part.
(b)
Except as noted in § 30.2(a)(1)(iv), where an exemption from the filing
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is repealing its regulations governing the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). The PTFP was a competitive grant program that helped public broadcasting stations, state and local governments, Indian Tribes, and nonprofit organizations to construct public television and radio stations. As of Fiscal Year 2011, no funds have been available for PTFP grants. NTIA is repealing its regulations governing the PTFP because the regulations are unnecessary and obsolete.
This rule becomes effective on September 20, 2017.
Milton Brown, Deputy Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4713, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1816; facsimile: (202) 501-8013; or email:
The PTFP was a competitive grant program that supports the planning and construction of public telecommunications facilities.
For the past seven years, no funds have been available for PTFP grants. In 2010, the Department of Commerce found that the majority of PTFP grants had assisted digital television conversion projects which had concluded, and that support for public broadcasters was available from other sources.
As a result of the lack of funding, NTIA began the orderly shutdown of the PTFP thereafter. NTIA has not processed applications or awarded any additional grants under the PTFP since that time. NTIA has continued to monitor PTFP grants it awarded before Fiscal Year 2011 to ensure taxpayer funds have been utilized in the most responsible and efficient manner.
On July 18, 2017, NTIA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Congress authorized NTIA to establish regulations “as may be necessary to carry out” the PTFP.
The Final Rule relates solely to the repeal of grant program processes, and, as such, is not subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
It has been determined that this final rule is not major under 5 U.S.C. 801
The repeal of the regulations governing the PTFP is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
The repeal of the regulations governing the PTFP does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the repeal of regulations governing the PTFP would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities in accordance with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). NTIA received no comments on the certification, which remains unchanged.
The repeal of the regulations governing the PTFP contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. In 2013, OMB approved NTIA's requests to discontinue the following collections associated with the regulations governing the PTFP: OMB Control Numbers 0660-0003, 0660-0001, and 0605-0001; consequently, NTIA has no active collections associated with its regulations governing the PTFP.
Administrative procedure, Grant programs-communications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the effective date of August 3, 2017, for the final rule that appeared in the
Effective date of final rule published in the
Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1075.
In the
We gave interested persons until August 2, 2017, to file objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date of the final rule that published in the
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, and an amended SIP submission from the State of Iowa for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
Infrastructure SIPs address the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110, which requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.
This direct final rule will be effective November 20, 2017, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 20, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0208, to
Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 at (913) 551-7039, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving elements of the 2010 NO
A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of this docket to discuss the details of this action, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state initiated public comment from April 6, 2013, to May 8, 2013. One comment was received and adequately addressed in the final SIP submission. The amended submission was placed on public comment January 12, 2017, to February 15, 2017. No comments were received. These submissions also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revisions meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
EPA is approving elements of the July 23, 2013, (received July 29, 2013) infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 NO
EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(I). Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address element (I). The specific SIP submissions for designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D, are subject to different submission schedules than those for section 110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on part D attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prong 4.
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 CAA, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amending 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Nebraska addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
This direct final rule will be effective November 20, 2017, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 20, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0477 to
Mr. Gregory Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the infrastructure submissions as meeting the submittal requirement section 110(a)(1). EPA is approving elements of the 2010 NO
In regard to the 2010 SO
In regard to the 2010 NO
As noted, a Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of the docket to discuss the details of this action.
The state submissions have met the public notification requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. A public comment period was held for the NO
The only comments were from the EPA, and the infrastructure SIP submission was revised to address the comments. A public hearing was held on January 28, 2013.
The state held a public comment period for the SO
A public comment period was held for the PM
All three submissions satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. As explained in more detail in the TSD, which is part of this docket, the revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
EPA is approving the infrastructure SIP submissions from Nebraska, which address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 NO
With regard to the 2010 NO
EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements of 110(a)(2) as it relates to the 2010 SO
Finally, EPA is taking no action with respect to section 110(a)(2)(I) for the 2010 NO
Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 CAA, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment areas.
This rule will be effective on October 20, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0215. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On June 15, 2017 (82 FR 27451), under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”), the EPA proposed to approve the “2016 AQMP Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration” (“2016 AQMP RACT SIP”), submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on July 18, 2014
Our proposed rule was based on our evaluation of the public draft versions of the 2017 RACT Supplement and negative declarations, and we indicated that we would not take final action until CARB submitted the final adopted versions to the EPA as a SIP revision. On July 7, 2017, the SCAQMD held a public hearing and approved the 2017 RACT Supplement and two negative declarations and submitted the approval package to CARB for adoption and submittal to the EPA. On July 26, 2017, the CARB Executive Officer adopted the 2017 RACT Supplement and negative declarations as a revision to the California SIP and, on July 27, 2017, submitted them to the EPA for approval, thereby satisfying the condition
The District prepared the 2017 RACT Supplement to address a deficiency that the EPA had identified in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and that was the basis for the EPA's proposed partial disapproval published on November 3, 2016 (81 FR 76547).
On August 7, 2017, we found the 2017 RACT Supplement including certain conditions from permits for two specific stationary sources located in Coachella Valley, and two negative declarations met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
In our proposed rule, we explained that CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above implement RACT for any source covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
We further explained that the areas under discussion here are subject to the RACT requirement as the South Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”) is classified as an Extreme nonattainment area and the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside County (“Coachella Valley”) is classified as a Severe-15 nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305); 77 FR 30088 at 30101 and 30103 (May 21, 2012). SCAQMD implements the RACT requirements for South Coast and Coachella Valley because it is authorized under state law to regulate stationary sources in those areas. Therefore, the SCAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt requirements to achieve emissions reductions equivalent to RACT-level controls for all sources covered by a CTG document and for all major non-CTG sources of VOC or NO
In our proposed rule, we evaluated the 2016 AQMP RACT Demonstration, 2017 RACT Supplement and negative declarations in light of the above requirements and concluded that, collectively, they meet the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone standard. In this document, we provide a summary of our evaluation. For a more detailed discussion, please see the proposed rule at 82 FR 27451, pages 27453 through 27455.
First, based on our review of the documentation provided by the SCAQMD in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP and the negative declarations, we agreed that existing District rules approved in the SIP meet or are more stringent than the corresponding CTG limits and applicability thresholds for each category of VOC sources covered by a CTG document or are covered by negative declarations for which we were proposing approval. In this action, we affirm the finding we made in the proposed rule with respect to the CTG portion of the RACT requirement and approve the two negative declarations as a revision to the California SIP.
Next, with respect to major stationary sources of VOC or NO
With respect to the first part of the evaluation of RACT for major sources, we reviewed the information provided by the District regarding new major Title V sources receiving permits since the District's previous RACT SIP approval and agreed with the District that the District's command-and-control VOC and NO
In connection with the second part of the evaluation, we described RECLAIM as a program adopted by the District to reduce emissions from the largest stationary sources of NO
Under longstanding EPA interpretation of the CAA, a market-based cap and trade program may satisfy RACT requirements by ensuring that the level of emission reductions resulting from implementation of the program will be equal, in the aggregate, to those reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all affected sources within the nonattainment area,
As noted above, state law requires the District to monitor advances in BARCT and to periodically reassess the overall facility caps to ensure that RECLAIM facilities achieve the same or greater emission reductions that would have occurred under a command-and-control approach. In 2005, the District examined the RECLAIM program, found that additional reduction opportunities existed due to the advancement of control technology, and amended the RECLAIM rules (
In the 2017 RACT Supplement, the District provided a demonstration of how the RECLAIM program, as amended in 2015, meets the RACT requirement in the aggregate. To do so, the District re-examined the BARCT reevaluation that it conducted in 2015 and determined that, for certain source categories, the BARCT allocation level was essentially equivalent to RACT, but that, for certain other source categories, the BARCT allocation level was beyond RACT because there were no other rules in the District itself or any other California air district for these specific categories that were more stringent than the limits established under the RECLAIM program in effect prior to the 2015 amendments. The District then re-calculated hypothetical facility annual allocations (in the aggregate) reflecting RACT implementation (rather than BARCT) of 14.8 tpd. Because the facility annual allocations (in the aggregate) for NO
In our proposed rule, based on our review of the District's approach, assumptions, and methods to the updated RECLAIM program, we agreed that, as amended in 2015, the RECLAIM program provides for emissions reductions greater, in the aggregate, to those reductions expected from the direct application of RACT on all major NO
Lastly, with respect to the two major NO
For more background information and a more extensive discussion of the 2016 AQMP RACT Demonstration, the 2017 RACT Supplement, and negative declarations and our evaluation of them for compliance with CAA RACT requirements, please see our proposed rule and related technical support document (TSD).
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period which ended on July 17, 2017. During this period, we received comments from Earthjustice, which submitted comments on behalf of the Sierra Club.
Earthjustice also views the EPA's longstanding definition of RACT as supporting an interpretation of the RACT requirement as applicable to each and every major NO
Second, CAA section 182(b)(2), in relevant part, provides that the state shall submit a revision to the SIP to include provisions to require the implementation of RACT under section 172(c)(1) of this title with respect to, among other categories, all other major stationary sources of VOC that are located in the area, and Section 182(f) extends the requirements for major stationary sources of VOC to major stationary sources of NO
The plain language of section 172(c)(1)—“such reductions . . . as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology”—does not require reductions from each individual source but rather only requires areas to achieve the same level of emissions reductions from stationary sources that installing reasonably available control technology would yield. In other words, as long as the level of emissions reductions obtained in the area from stationary sources equals or exceeds the level of emissions reductions that would be achieved through implementation of RACT at existing sources, then the RACT requirement of section 172(c)(1) are met.
Section 182(b)(2) simply prescribes a more specific bar for the required level of emissions reductions that must be obtained. With respect to major stationary sources of NO
The area-wide—rather than individual, source-specific—nature of the RACT requirement is reinforced by
Third, Earthjustice cites the EPA's longstanding definition of RACT as support for its position, however, the definition cited in the comment does not require an individual, source-specific application of control technology. Instead, it is used solely as the beginning point for the extrapolation of the total reductions that each nonattainment area must achieve to satisfy the section 172(c)(1) RACT requirement.
Fourth, we also disagree with the claim that reliance on emissions trading to meet the RACT requirement for major NO
Lastly, we acknowledge Earthjustice's comment that our November 3, 2016 rulemaking proposed to partially disapprove the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP because of deficiencies in the RECLAIM rules. However, our proposed partial disapproval was not based on the fact that RECLAIM is an emissions averaging program but rather on the evidence at hand that suggested that the then-current SIP RECLAIM program did not actually provide for the emissions reductions necessary to achieve RACT-level reductions. Since then, the District has amended, and the EPA has approved, the RECLAIM rules to achieve greater aggregate emissions reductions from the sources in the program, and based on the District's evaluation of the amended program as set forth in the 2017 RACT Supplement, we have concluded that the RECLAIM rules, as amended, meet the RACT requirement in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) with respect to major stationary sources of NO
Earthjustice points out that SCAQMD's BARCT assessment concluded that a 14 tpd “shave” from the program was needed to be equivalent to a traditional command-and-control regulatory approach. Earthjustice further asserts that if readily available BARCT equipment were applied to sources of pollution in the program, emissions would have been at 9.5 tpd instead of 20.7 tpd. Earthjustice comments that, although the SCAQMD staff recommended a 14 tpd shave, the Governing Board adopted a 12 tpd shave instead. Earthjustice further states that the record shows that the 12 tpd shave does not sufficiently result in RACT level controls for the NO
BARCT is a term used by the State of California and is defined as “an emission limitation that is based on the
We note that SCAQMD determined in its December 4, 2015 Draft Final Staff Report that only four out of an estimated 51 boilers/heaters were retrofitted with selective catalytic reduction to reduce NO
Lastly, we disagree with Earthjustice's assertion that the EPA should not approve the South Coast RACT demonstration because the pace of the NO
There is no universal method for evaluating a cap-and-trade program for RACT equivalence, and we find the District's approach,
Nonetheless, while we believe the SCAQMD's approach in the 2017 RACT Supplement is reasonable, we have provided additional review of the seven RECLAIM categories for which the District concluded that the 2005 RECLAIM factors represent RACT level of control. The seven categories include four from the refinery sector: Fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs), boilers and heaters, coke calciners, and sulfur recovery unit/tail gas (SRU/TG) incinerators, and three from the non-refinery sector: Glass melting furnaces, sodium silicate furnaces, and metal heating treating.
At the outset, we note that, while the EPA has not established a simple cost-effectiveness threshold to determine RACT in all applications, the incremental cost effectiveness estimates for three of the seven categories (refinery boilers and heaters, coke calciners, and SRU/TG incinerators) to achieve 2015 BARCT (relative to the 2005 BARCT) exceed $22,000 per ton
First, with respect to FCCUs, the District's 2015 BARCT staff report compiled and evaluated emissions limits adopted throughout the U.S. and internationally.
Second, with respect to glass melting furnaces, the RECLAIM NO
Third, with respect to metal heat treating furnaces, the 2005 RECLAIM BARCT emission factor for this category is 45 ppm.
Fourth, with respect to sodium silicate furnaces, we note that the incremental emissions reductions (0.09 tons per day) are too small to affect the conclusion of the analysis because the SCAQMD's ending allocation under the 2015 RECLAIM amendments of 14.5 tons per day is 0.3 tons per day less (
Therefore, we do not believe that the comment has demonstrated that controls that SCAQMD labels BARCT, can be assumed to also be RACT. Rather, we think it is appropriate to generally rely on the more involved RACT analysis performed by different agencies at the time of rule adoption or preparation of a RACT SIP. As such, we believe it is reasonable to assume that a control is beyond RACT if it has not yet been adopted by air districts in California.
Lastly, with respect to the issue of excess credits in the RECLAIM market and related delays in the installation of controls, please see our response to comment #3.
First, alleged inconsistency with state law is relevant to the EPA in the context of our SIP review only if it undermines the legal authority under state or local law to carry out the SIP. In this instance, compliance with the RACT requirement in the South Coast depends in part on the legal authority of the SCAQMD to carry out the RECLAIM rules, as amended in 2015 and 2016,
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, and for the reasons set forth in the proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is taking final action to approve certain revisions to the California SIP submitted by CARB to address the RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone standard for the South Coast and Coachella Valley nonattainment areas. More specifically, we are approving the RACT demonstration in the 2016 AQMP RACT SIP, as supplemented in the 2017 RACT Supplement, certain permit conditions for two power plants in Coachella Valley included with the 2017 RACT Supplement, and two
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of certain permit conditions for two stationary sources in Coachella Valley described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA, has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves SIP revisions 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 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this 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 rule 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 (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(449) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
(492) The following plan revisions were submitted on July 27, 2017 by the Governor's designee.
(i)
(
(
(ii)
(
(
(a) * * *
(13) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(i) Negative declarations for the 2008 ozone standard: Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating) including (published on August 27, 1996) and EPA 453/R-94-032 Alternative Control Techniques Document: Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities; paper coating portion of EPA 453/R-07-003 Control Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings.
(ii) [Reserved]
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is making technical amendments to its vessel documentation regulations. A Certificate of Documentation, which is required for the operation of a vessel in certain trades, serves as evidence of vessel nationality, and permits a vessel to be subject to preferred mortgages. The amendments make non-substantive edits to align Coast Guard regulations with current vessel documentation statutes, correct typographical errors, and align procedural requirements with current Coast Guard practice.
This final rule is effective September 20, 2017.
For information about this document, call or email Ms. Andrea Heck, National Vessel Documentation Center, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 304-271-2461, email
The legal basis of this rulemaking is provided by Title 46 of United States Code (U.S.C.), section 2103. Section 2103 gives the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating regulatory authority to carry out the provisions of Title 46, subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen) of the U.S.C., in which vessel documentation statutes are located. The Secretary's authority is delegated to the Coast Guard by Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (92.a). The purpose of this rule is to make non-substantive edits to: (1) Align the Coast Guard's vessel documentation regulations with current statutes on that subject; (2) correct typographical errors; and (3) align procedural requirements with current Coast Guard practice.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Under Title 5 of United States Code (U.S.C.) section 553(b)(A), the Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice and public comment rulemaking requirements, because these changes involve rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice. In addition, the Coast Guard finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as this rule consists only of technical and editorial corrections, organizational, and conforming amendments, and that these changes will have no substantive effect on the public. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that, for the same reasons, good cause exists for making this final rule effective upon publication in the
On October 18, 2013, the Maritime Law Association, a private group consisting primarily of maritime lawyers, petitioned the Coast Guard to open a rulemaking to make numerous changes to our vessel documentation regulations.
“Vessel documentation” refers to the system under which a vessel receives a Government certificate of documentation (COD). This certificate is required for the operation of a vessel of at least 5 net tons in certain trades including: (1) Fisheries on the navigable waters of the United States or its Exclusive Economic Zone; (2) foreign trade or trade with U.S. overseas territories; and (3) coastwise trade (trade between U.S. ports without leaving U.S. territorial waters) as described in 46 U.S.C. 12102 and 46 U.S.C. chapter 121, subchapter II. The COD is also a required element, in 46 U.S.C. 31322, to establish a vessel's entitlement to preferred mortgage status. Under 46 U.S.C. 31326, preferred mortgages have priority over other liens on vessels, and they offer an enhancement to the security available to lenders.
This final rule makes 35 non-substantive changes to 19 sections in 46 CFR part 67. The changes correct omissions, misspellings, or inaccurate references caused by unintentional typographical errors and make small edits for additional clarity. The changes also update referenced material, such as
The changes made by this rule also reflect the elimination of citizenship requirements for mortgagees by Public Law 104-324, section 1113 (1996). Since the issuance of Public Law 104-324, the National Vessel Documentation Center (NVDC) has allowed vessel owners to mortgage their vessels to non-citizens, and it has not restricted the eligibility of a vessel mortgaged to a non-citizen to earn registry or coastwise endorsements, even though 33 CFR 67.17(c) and 67.19(d)(3) continue to explicitly state these restrictions. Therefore, amending these sections will align regulatory text with the current and longstanding 20-year practice of the NVDC, consistent with the statutory requirements, and these changes will result in no impact on industry.
This rule also makes changes to reflect the elimination of renewal decals and address labels for CODs issued by the NVDC. In 2001, the NVDC began to use a new database, Vessel Documentation System 1.0, and introduced the current version of the COD (66 FR 15625, March 20, 2001). This information technology system and recordkeeping form made the use of decals and labels unnecessary; therefore, the NVDC stopped requiring them, even though the relevant sections of part 67 continued to reference them. Amending 46 CFR 67.163(c) and 67.311 will align regulatory text with NVDC's current practice, and these changes will result in no impact on industry.
The following table shows the complete list of sections in 46 CFR part 67 that we are amending, the changes we are making, the reasons for those changes, and their impacts.
In association with the changes made by the recodification of title 46, the Coast Guard is updating its list of authority citations for 46 CFR part 67. For a cross-walk between the changes, please see the disposition tables for title 46 and the Historical and Revision Notes for the applicable sections in the U.S.C.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017). This rule involves non-substantive changes and internal agency practices and procedures; it will not impose any additional costs on the public. The benefit of the non-substantive changes is increased clarity of regulations.
This rule is not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply when notice and comment rulemaking is not required.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new or modified collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) if the rule has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (“Civil Justice Reform”), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks”). This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), because it does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD (COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. This rule is categorically excluded under Chapter 2, Section B, Paragraph 2 (Categorical Exclusions), and Figure 2-1 (Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions), paragraph (34)(a) and (34)(d) of the Instruction.
This final rule involves technical amendments to the Coast Guard's vessel documentation regulations. Certificates of Documentation allow the operation of vessels in certain trades, provide evidence of vessel nationality, and permit vessels to be subject to preferred mortgages. The technical amendments presented in this rulemaking entail editorial or procedural changes that: (1) Align Coast Guard regulations with current vessel documentation statutes; (2) correct non-substantive typographical errors; and (3) harmonize procedural requirements with current Coast Guard practice. These amendments collectively promote the Coast Guard's maritime safety, security, and environmental protection missions by rendering the Coast Guard's vessel documentation system more effective.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR part 67 as follows:
4 U.S.C. 664; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 9118; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104, 2107, 12102, 12103, 12104, 12105, 12106, 12113, 12133, 12139; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
No person other than a documentation officer shall intentionally alter a Certificate of Documentation.
In rule document 2017-18411 beginning on page 41466 in the issue of Thursday, August 31, 2017, make the following corrections:
1. On page 41466, in the first column, in the first line below Table E-1, remove the words
2. On the same page, in the second column, after the second line, insert the words
Should read:
should read:
The revision reads as follows:
10. On page 41496, in the first column, in the 22nd and 23rd line, “and add, in their place, the words “working capital fund.” ” should read “and add in their place the words “working capital fund”.”.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its rules to permit vehicular radars and certain non-vehicular fixed and mobile radars used at airports to operate in the entire 76-81 GHz band on an interference-protected basis. Access to the entire 76-81 GHz band is intended to provide sufficient spectrum bandwidth to enable the deployment of wideband high-precision short-range vehicular radar (SRR) applications, such as blind spot detectors, that can enhance the safety of drivers and other road users, while continuing to allow the deployment of proven long-range vehicular radar (LRR) applications, such as adaptive cruise control. The amended rules also permit the deployment in airport air operations areas of fixed and mobile radars that detect foreign object debris (FOD) on runways, which could harm aircraft on take-off and landing, and aircraft-mounted radars that can help aircraft avoid colliding with equipment, buildings, and other aircraft while moving on airport grounds. In addition, the amended rules allow for the continued shared use of the 76-81 GHz band by other incumbent users, including amateur radio operators and the scientific research community.
Howard Griboff (Legal) at (202) 418-0657,
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. On February 3, 2015, the Commission adopted a
• Allocated the 77.5-78 GHz band to the Radiolocation Service on a primary basis in the U.S. Table to provide a contiguous five gigahertz band at 76-81 GHz for radar operations.
• Allowed vehicular radars and certain non-vehicular fixed and mobile radars used at airports to operate in the entire 76-81 GHz band.
• Consolidated radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band under part 95 of the Commission's rules to be licensed-by-rule and protected from interference with the same technical parameters as currently specified for 76-77 GHz radars in part 15 of the rules.
• Restricted fixed radar operations to airport air operations areas to prevent such radars signals from illuminating public roadways and causing harmful interference to vehicular radar operations.
• Reduced the maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of amateur and amateur satellite operations in the 76-81 GHz band to match that of radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band to reduce the potential for these amateur operations to cause harmful interference to radar operations in the band.
2. In the
3. As proposed in the
4. Although the Commission determined that the addition of the primary RLS allocation in the 77.5-78 GHz band did not raise any new interference considerations for RAS operations in the 76-81 GHz band, because there is no distinction between RAS use of the 77.5-78 GHz band and the remainder of the 76-81 GHz band it upgraded the secondary RAS allocation
5. As part of the Commission's efforts to consolidate future vehicular radar operations into the 76-81 GHz band, the
6. As proposed in the
7. However, as proposed in the
8. The Commission clarified that the proposal with regard to phasing out use of the 22-29 GHz band for wideband and UWB vehicular radar operations that operate under §§ 15.252 and 15.515 of the rules was not intended to apply to unlicensed radars that operate at 24.075-24.175 GHz and 24.0-24.25 GHz under §§ 15.245 and 15.249 of the rules, respectively. These rules, which are not being modified, authorize a wide variety of devices that include, but are not limited to, vehicular-specific radars. As such, the Commission will continue to certify radars that operate under these rules and they can continue to be used in vehicular applications.
9.
10. However, the Commission recognized the possibility that there may be situations in which fixed radars might be compatible with vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz band, and did not foreclose exploration of such scenarios. The Commission acknowledged that, under careful coordination, it might be possible for fixed radars to operate in the band at carefully selected locations without causing harmful interference to vehicular radars, but noted that there was insufficient information in the record to develop the specific criteria for a successful coordination process. The Commission stated that it is open to the possibility that specific, limited fixed uses of 76-81 GHz radars outside of airport locations may be possible so long as it can be convinced that such use would not cause harmful interference to vehicular radar operations in the band.
11.
12. The Commission also permitted the use of aircraft-mounted radar applications, referred to as “wingtip radars,” in the entire 76-81 GHz band with the same technical rules as FOD detection radars, as long as they are used in airport air operations areas while aircraft (including helicopters) are on the ground. These radars will be used to prevent and mitigate the severity of aircraft wingtip collisions while planes move between airport gates and runways. The Commission agreed with commenters that aircraft-mounted radar applications can help protect aircraft during taxiing and ground maneuvering, improve airport operations, and provide significant benefits to the airline industry and traveling public, while still protecting vehicular radars from harmful interference.
13. Based on the potential for airborne radar operations to interfere with RAS operations, the Commission decided not to permit the use of aircraft-mounted radars when the aircraft (or helicopter) is airborne. To provide greater assurance that parties will comply with the ground-based restriction for aircraft-mounted radars, the Commission also decided to require that aircraft-mounted radars include an automatic mechanism that discontinues all 76-81 GHz radar functions while the aircraft is airborne, which no commenters objected to, and one commenter indicated is technically feasible.
14. As proposed in the
15. A licensed-by-rule approach under part 95 will provide a level of interference protection to 76-81 GHz radar operations that the Commission's part 15 rules cannot provide since unlicensed users must accept interference from licensed and unlicensed users, whereas under part 95, primary licensed users are protected from interference from secondary and unlicensed users. A licensed-by-rule approach will also reduce the application and licensing burdens associated with authorizing radar operations under an individual license basis, and create time and cost efficiencies for deployment of these important services. Given that FOD detection radar operations are restricted to airport air operations areas that do not have public vehicle access, and considering the narrow beamwidths, highly directional antennas, and large signal propagation losses at relatively short distances of radar operations in the 76-81 GHz band, the Commission saw no need to require licensed FOD detection radars to coordinate with other licensed services or exclude FOD detection radars from part 95 regulation.
16.
17. Vehicular and FOD detection radars currently certified under part 15 to operate in the 76-77 GHz band need not be recertified under part 95 to continue to operate in the band. These devices may continue their operations, but will now do so on a licensed-by-rule basis and be entitled to interference protection from amateur operations in the 76-81 GHz band. Any changes for such previously certified devices will need to comply with the applicable part 95 rules.
18. This document does not contain any new or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.
19. The Commission will send a copy of the
20. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), set forth in Appendix B of the
21. Accordingly,
22.
Radio, Telecommunications.
Communications equipment, Radar, Radio.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 90, 95, and 97 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303(r), 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible User Service pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), and the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service pursuant to part 95 of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.
(ii) Unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII, and millimeter-wave devices are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
The revision and addition read as follows:
5.559B The use of the frequency band 77.5-78 GHz by the radiolocation service shall be limited to short-range radar for ground-based applications, including automotive radars. The technical characteristics of these radars are provided in the most recent version of Recommendation ITU-R M.2057. The provisions of No. 4.10 do not apply. (WRC-15)
(c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service pursuant to part 95 of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if:
(2) Unlicensed personal communications service devices, unlicensed millimeter-wave devices, and unlicensed NII devices authorized under §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if their ERP is 3 watts or more or if they meet the definition of a portable device as specified in § 2.1093(b) requiring evaluation under the provisions of that section.
(c)(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), and the 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service pursuant to subparts H, I, and M of part 95 of this chapter, respectively; unlicensed personal communication service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter-wave devices authorized under §§ 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
(l) The certification of wideband vehicular radars designed to operate in the 23.12-29 GHz band under § 15.252 and ultra-wideband vehicular radars designed to operate in the 22-29 GHz band under § 15.515 shall not be permitted on or after September 20, 2018.
(m) The manufacture, importation, marketing, sale, and installation of wideband or ultra-wideband vehicular radars that are designed to operate in the 23.12-29 GHz band under § 15.252 and/or in the 22-29 GHz band under § 15.515 shall not be permitted after January 1, 2022. Notwithstanding the foregoing, sale and installation of such radars is permitted, for the life of the vehicle, when the following conditions have been met:
(1) The sale and installation is for the exclusive purpose of repairing or replacing defective, damaged, or potentially malfunctioning radars that are designed to operate in the 23.12-29 GHz band under § 15.252 and/or in the 22-29 GHz band under § 15.515;
(2) The equipment being repaired or replaced has been installed in the vehicle on or before January 1, 2022; and
(3) It is not possible to replace the vehicular radar equipment designed to operate in the 23.12-29 GHz and/or 22-29 GHz bands with vehicular radar equipment designed to operate in the 76-81 GHz band.
(n) Wideband or ultra-wideband vehicular radars operating in the 23.12-29 GHz band under § 15.252 and/or in the 22-29 GHz band under § 15.515 that are already installed or in use may continue to operate in accordance with their previously obtained certification. Class II permissive changes for such equipment shall not be permitted after January 1, 2022.
(o) Applicable July 13, 2017, the certification, manufacture, importation, marketing, sale, and installation of field disturbance sensors that are designed to operate in the 16.2-17.7 GHz and 46.7-46.9 GHz bands shall not be permitted. Field disturbance sensors already installed or in use in the 16.2-17.7 GHz band may continue to operate in accordance with their previously obtained certification. Class II permissive changes shall not be permitted for such equipment.
(p) Effective October 20, 2017, the certification under this part of vehicular radars and fixed radar systems used in airport air operations areas that are designed to operate in the 76-77 GHz band shall not be permitted. Vehicular radars and fixed radar systems used in airport air operations areas operating in the 76-77 GHz band that are already installed or in use may continue to operate in accordance with their previously obtained certification. Any future certification, or any change of already issued certification and operations of such equipment, shall be under part 95, subpart M, of this chapter.
(a) Operation under this section is limited to field disturbance sensors that are mounted in terrestrial transportation vehicles. Terrestrial use is limited to earth surface-based, non-aviation applications.
(1) The −10 dB bandwidth of the fundamental emissions shall be located within the 23.12-29.0 GHz band, exclusive of the 23.6-24.0 GHz restricted band, as appropriate, under all conditions of operation including the effects from stepped frequency, frequency hopping or other modulation techniques that may be employed as well as the frequency stability of the transmitter over expected variations in temperature and supply voltage.
(b) * * *
(2) In addition to the radiated emissions limits specified in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, transmitters operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the following RMS average EIRP limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:
(3) There is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest radiated emission occurs and this 50 MHz bandwidth must be contained within the 24.05-29.0 GHz band. The peak EIRP limit is 20 log (RBW/50) dBm where RBW is the resolution bandwidth in MHz employed by the measurement instrument. RBW shall not be lower than 1 MHz or greater than 50 MHz. Further, RBW shall not be greater than the −10 dB bandwidth of the device under test. For transmitters that employ frequency hopping, stepped frequency or similar modulation types, measurement of the −10 dB minimum bandwidth specified in this paragraph shall be made with the frequency hop or step function disabled and with the transmitter operating continuously at a fundamental frequency. The video bandwidth of the measurement instrument shall not be less than RBW. The limit on peak emissions applies to the 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest level radiated emission occurs. If RBW is greater than 3 MHz, the application for certification shall contain a detailed description of the test procedure, the instrumentation employed in the testing, and the calibration of the test setup.
(d) Wideband vehicular radar systems operating in the 23.12-29.0 GHz band are subject to the transition provisions of § 15.37(l) through (n).
(h) UWB vehicular systems operating in the 22-29 GHz band are subject to the transition provisions of § 15.37(l) through (n).
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302(a), 303, and 307(e).
Operation of Personal Radio Services stations under automatic control is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service.
This subpart sets out the regulations that apply to radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band. This subpart does not apply to Level Probing Radars that operate under part 15 of this title.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Subject to the requirements of §§ 95.305 and 95.307, any person is eligible to operate a radar in the 76-81 GHz band without an individual license; such operation must comply with all applicable rules in this subpart.
Radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band may operate as vehicular radars, or as fixed or mobile radars in airport air operations areas, including but not limited to FOD detection radars and aircraft-mounted radars for ground use only.
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 95.3331, 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service is prohibited aboard aircraft in flight. Aircraft-mounted radars shall be equipped with a mechanism that will prevent operations once the aircraft becomes airborne.
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 95.347, 76-81 GHz Band Radar Service operations may be conducted under manual or automatic control.
Radar equipment operating in the 76-81 GHz band shall be certificated in accordance with this subpart and subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.
The fundamental radiated emission limits within the 76-81 GHz band are expressed in terms of Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) and are as follows:
(a) The maximum power (EIRP) within the 76-81 GHz band shall not exceed 50 dBm based on measurements employing a power averaging detector with a 1 MHz Resolution Bandwidth (RBW).
(b) The maximum peak power (EIRP) within the 76-81 GHz band shall not exceed 55 dBm based on measurements employing a peak detector with a 1 MHz RBW.
(a) The power density of any emissions outside the 76-81 GHz band shall consist solely of spurious emissions and shall not exceed the following:
(1) Radiated emissions below 40 GHz shall not exceed the field strength as shown in the following emissions table.
(i) In the emissions table in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the tighter limit applies at the band edges.
(ii) The limits in the table in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are based on the frequency of the unwanted emissions and not the fundamental frequency. However, the level of any unwanted emissions shall not exceed the level of the fundamental frequency.
(iii) The emissions limits shown in the table in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are based on measurements employing a CISPR quasi-peak detector except for the frequency bands 9.0-90.0 kHz, 110.0-490.0 kHz, and above 1000 MHz. Radiated emissions limits in these three bands are based on measurements employing an average detector with a 1 MHz RBW.
(2) The power density of radiated emissions outside the 76-81 GHz band above 40.0 GHz shall not exceed the following, based on measurements employing an average detector with a 1 MHz RBW:
(i) For radiated emissions outside the 76-81 GHz band between 40 GHz and 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band: 600 pW/cm
(ii) For radiated emissions above 200 GHz from field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band: 1000 pW/cm
(3) For field disturbance sensors and radar systems operating in the 76-81 GHz band, the spectrum shall be investigated up to 231.0 GHz.
(b) Fundamental emissions must be contained within the frequency bands specified in this section during all conditions of operation. Equipment is presumed to operate over the temperature range −20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage, unless justification is presented to demonstrate otherwise.
Regardless of the power density levels permitted under this subpart, devices operating under the provisions of this subpart are subject to the radiofrequency radiation exposure requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.
(c) Amateur stations transmitting in the 76-81 GHz segment, the 136-141 GHz segment, or the 241-248 GHz segment must not cause harmful interference to, and must accept interference from, stations authorized by the United States Government, the FCC, or other nations in the radiolocation service.
(f) Amateur stations transmitting in the following segments must not cause harmful interference to radio astronomy stations: 3.332-3.339 GHz, 3.3458-3.3525 GHz, 76-81 GHz, 136-141 GHz, 241-248 GHz, 275-323 GHz, 327-371 GHz, 388-424 GHz, 426-442 GHz, 453-510 GHz, 623-711 GHz, 795-909 GHz, or 926-945 GHz. In addition, amateur stations transmitting in the following segments must not cause harmful interference to stations in the Earth exploration-satellite service (passive) or the space research service (passive): 275-277 GHz, 294-306 GHz, 316-334 GHz, 342-349 GHz, 363-365 GHz, 371-389 GHz, 416-434 GHz, 442-444 GHz, 496-506 GHz, 546-568 GHz, 624-629 GHz, 634-654 GHz, 659-661 GHz, 684-692 GHz, 730-732 GHz, 851-853 GHz, or 951-956 GHz.
(s) [Reserved]
(m) No station may transmit with a peak equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) exceeding 316 W in the 76-81 GHz (4 mm) band.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the iiwi (
This rule becomes effective October 20, 2017.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Mary Abrams, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone (808-792-9400); or by facsimile (808-792-9581). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
This rule finalizes the listing of the iiwi (
Delineation of critical habitat requires, within the geographical area occupied by the species, identification of the physical or biological features essential to the species' conservation. A careful assessment of the biological needs of the species and the areas that may have the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protections, and thus qualify for designation as critical habitat, is particularly complicated in this case by the ongoing and projected effects of climate change and will require a thorough assessment. We require additional time to analyze the best available scientific data in order to identify specific areas appropriate for critical habitat designation and to analyze the impacts of designating such areas as critical habitat. Accordingly, we find designation of critical habitat for the iiwi to be “not determinable” at this time.
A species status report for the iiwi was prepared by a team of Service biologists, with the assistance of scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Pacific Islands Ecosystems Research Center and the Service's Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative. We also obtained review and input from experts familiar with avian malaria and avian genetics. The species status report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the past, present, and future threats to the iiwi. The final species status report, revised in response to peer reviewer comments, and other materials relating to this proposal can be found at
Please refer to the proposed listing rule, published in the
We solicited comments during the 60-day public comment period from September 20, to November 21, 2016 (81 FR 64414). We contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to
Of the nine comment letters we received from members of the public, eight expressed general support for our listing the iiwi under the Act, and one commented on a topic unrelated to our proposed rule. None of these letters provided new, substantive information or comments requiring specific response here.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight individuals with scientific expertise on the iiwi and its habitat, biological needs, and threats, including familiarity with the geographic region where the iiwi occurs, and principles of conservation biology. We received responses from all eight of these individuals.
In general, all of the peer reviewers agreed that the draft Species Status Report and proposed rule provided an accurate synthesis of the life history of the iiwi and robust analysis of the stressors affecting the species. They further agreed that our conclusions regarding the status of the species were reasonable and scientifically sound. We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of iiwi. Where appropriate, we have incorporated corrections, editorial suggestions, and new literature and other information they provided into both the final species report and final rule. Any substantive comments are discussed below (see also Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule). All of the peer reviews were constructive and thorough; we thank the peer reviewers for their thoughtful assistance.
After consideration of the comments we received during the public comment period and new information published
(1) We have elevated the identification of avian pox as a potentially important factor contributing to the decline of iiwi in response to mosquito-borne diseases, in addition to the effects of avian malaria;
(2) We have made a more definitive statement about the likely negative effects of rat predation on iiwi (VanderWerf 2016, pers. comm.);
(3) We updated the amount of area on Hawaii Island that is now estimated to be affected by rapid ohia death, which has now increased to more than 50,000 acres (20,235 hectares) (Hughes 2016, pers. comm.);
(4) We have updated our discussion of both the documented and projected declines of native forest birds on the island of Kauai to reflect the recently published work of Paxton
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the iiwi (
A medium-sized forest bird notable for its iconic bright red feathers, black wings and tail, and a long, curved bill (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 2), the iiwi belongs to the family Fringillidae and the endemic Hawaiian honeycreeper subfamily, Drepanidinae (Pratt
Although iiwi may breed anytime between October and August (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 7-8), the main breeding season occurs between February and June, which coincides with peak flowering of ohia (Fancy and Ralph 1997, p. 2). Iiwi create cup-shaped nests typically within the upper canopy of ohia (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 7-8), and breeding pairs defend a small area around the nest and disperse after the breeding season (Fancy and Ralph 1997, p. 2). An iiwi clutch typically consists of two eggs, with a breeding pair raising one to two broods per year (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 7-8).
Well known for their seasonal movements in response to the availability of flowering ohia and mamane, iiwi are strong fliers that move long distances following their breeding season to locate nectar sources (Fancy and Ralph 1998, p. 3; Kuntz 2008, p. 1; Guillamet
Although historical abundance estimates are not available, the iiwi was considered one of the most common of the native forest birds in Hawaii by early naturalists, described as “ubiquitous” and found from sea level to the tree line across all the major islands (Banko 1981, pp. 1-2). Today the iiwi is no longer found on Lanai, and only a few individuals may be found on Oahu, Molokai, and west Maui. Remaining populations of iiwi are largely restricted to forests above approximately 3,937 feet (ft) (1,200 meters (m)) in elevation on Hawaii Island (Big Island), east Maui, and Kauai. As described below, the present distribution of iiwi corresponds with areas that are above the elevation at which the transmission of avian malaria readily occurs (“disease-free” habitats). The current abundance of iiwi rangewide is estimated at a mean of 605,418 individuals (range 550,972 to 659,864). Ninety percent of all iiwi now occur on Hawaii Island, followed by east Maui (about 10 percent), and Kauai (less than 1 percent) (Paxton
Iiwi population trends and abundance vary across the islands. The population on Kauai appears to be in steep decline, with a modeled rate of decrease equivalent to a 92 percent reduction in population over a 25-year period (Paxton
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of five various factors affecting its continued existence. Our species status report evaluated many potential stressors to iiwi, particularly direct impacts on the species from introduced diseases, as well as predation by introduced mammals, competition with nonnative birds, climate change, ectoparasites, and the effects of small population size. We also assessed stressors that may affect the extent or quality of the iiwi's required ohia forest habitat, including ohia dieback (a natural phenomenon), ohia rust (a nonnative pathogen), drought, fires, volcanic eruptions, climate change, and particularly rapid ohia death (ROD, also known as ohia wilt; a nonnative pathogen) and habitat alteration by nonnative plants and feral ungulates.
All species experience stressors; we consider a stressor to rise to the level of a threat to the species if the magnitude of the stressor is such that it places the current or future viability of the species at risk. In considering what stressors or factors might constitute threats to a species, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular stressor to evaluate whether the species may respond to that stressor in a way that causes impacts to the species now or is likely to cause impacts in the future. If there is exposure to a stressor and the species responds negatively, the stressor may be a threat. We consider the stressor to be a threat if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act. However, the identification of stressors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these stressors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
Our species status report examines all of the potential stressors to iiwi in detail. Here we describe those stressors that we conclude rise to the level of a threat to the long-term viability of iiwi.
Based on our comprehensive assessment of the status of the iiwi, we conclude that the best scientific data available consistently identifies avian malaria as the primary driver of declines in abundance and distribution of iiwi observed since the turn of the 20th century. This conclusion is supported by the extremely high mortality rate of iiwi (approximately 95 percent) in response to avian malaria, and the disappearance of iiwi from low-elevation ohia forest where it was formerly common and where malaria is prevalent today. Both the life cycle of the mosquito vector and the development and transmission of the malaria parasite are temperature-limited; thus, iiwi are now found primarily in high-elevation forests above 3,937 ft (1,200 m) where malaria prevalence and transmission is only brief and episodic, or nonexistent, under current conditions. The honeycreepers amakihi and apapane appear to be developing some resistance or tolerance to avian malaria (
Additionally, on Hawaii Island, where 90 percent of the iiwi currently occur, the recently discovered tree disease, ohia wilt, commonly known in Hawaii as rapid ohia death (ROD), was identified as an emergent source of habitat loss and degradation that has the potential to exacerbate other stressors to ohia forest habitat, as well as reduce the amount of habitat remaining for iiwi in an already limited, disease-free zone contained within a narrow elevation band. Rapid ohia death leads to significant mortality of the ohia that iiwi depend upon for nesting and foraging. This disease is spreading rapidly and has become a matter of urgent concern. If ROD continues to spread across the native ohia forests, it will directly threaten iiwi by eliminating the limited, malaria-free native forest areas that remain for the species.
Based on the analysis in our species status report, invasive, nonnative plants and feral ungulates have major, adverse impacts on ohia forest habitat. Although we did not find that the historical and ongoing habitat alteration by nonnative species is the primary cause of the significant observed decline in iiwi's abundance and distribution, the cumulative impacts to iiwi's habitat, and in particular the activities of feral ungulates, are not insignificant and likely exacerbate the effects of avian malaria. Feral ungulates, particularly pigs (
The introduction of avian diseases transmitted by the introduced southern house mosquito (
As noted above, avian malaria is a disease caused by the protozoan parasite
Wild iiwi infected with malaria are rarely captured, apparently because the onset of infection leads to rapid mortality, precluding their capture (Samuel
In a study specific to iiwi, Atkinson
Despite extremely high mortality of iiwi from avian malaria in general, the aforementioned study as well as two other studies have demonstrated that a few individuals have survived infection (Van Riper
Despite these observations, there is no indication as of yet that iiwi have developed significant resistance to malaria such that individuals can survive in areas where the disease is strongly prevalent, including all potential low-elevation forest habitat and most mid-elevation forest habitat (Foster
Three factors—the homogeneity of a portion of the iiwi genome, the high mortality rate of iiwi in response to avian malaria, and high levels of gene flow resulting from the wide-ranging nature of the species—suggest that iiwi would likely require a significant amount of time for development of genetic resistance to avian malaria, assuming the species retains a sufficiently large reservoir of genetic diversity for a response to natural selection. Genetic studies of iiwi have also noted a dichotomy between the lack of variation in mitochondrial DNA (Tarr and Fleischer 1993, 1995; Fleischer
The relationship between temperature and avian malaria is of extreme importance to the current persistence of iiwi and the viability of the species in the future. The development of the
Temperature also affects the life cycle of the malaria mosquito vector,
Early on, Ralph and Fancy (1995, p. 741) and Atkinson
Subsequent studies have confirmed the correlation between risk of malaria infection and iiwi altitudinal migrations, and suggest upper elevation forest reserves in Hawaii may not adequately protect mobile nectarivores such as iiwi. Kuntz (2008, p. 3) found iiwi populations at upper elevation study sites (6,300 ft (1,920 m)) declined during the non-breeding season when birds departed for lower elevations in search of flowering ohia, traveling up to 12 mi (19.4 km) over contiguous mosquito-infested wet forest. Guillamet
Avian pox (or bird pox) is an infection caused by the virus
As early as 1902, native birds suffering from avian pox were observed in the Hawaiian Islands, and Warner (1968, p. 106) described reports that epizootics of avian pox “were so numerous and extreme that large numbers of diseased and badly debilitated birds could be observed in the field.” As the initial wave of post-European extinctions of native Hawaiian birds was largely observed in the late 1800s, prior to the introduction of avian malaria (Van Riper
The largest study of avian pox in scope and scale took place between 1977 and 1980, during which approximately 15,000 native and nonnative forest birds were captured and examined for pox virus lesions on Hawaii Island (Van Riper
It has been widely established that damage to native tree ferns (
In studies of native forest plots where feral ungulates (including pigs) were removed by trapping and other methods, researchers have demonstrated a correlation in the abundance of
The relatively recent introduction of avian pox and avian malaria, in concert with the introduction of the mosquito disease vector, is widely viewed as one of the key factors underlying the loss and decline of native forest birds throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Evolving in the absence of mosquitoes and their vectored pathogens, native Hawaiian forest birds, particularly honeycreepers such as iiwi, lack natural immunity or genetic resistance, and thus are more susceptible to these diseases than are nonnative bird species (van Riper
Many native forest birds, including iiwi, are now absent from warm, low-elevation areas that support large populations of disease-carrying mosquitoes, and these birds persist only in relatively disease-free zones in high-elevation forests, above roughly 4,921 to 5,577 ft (1,500 to 1,700 m), where both the development of the malarial parasite and the density of mosquito populations are held in check by cooler temperatures (Scott
Based on the assessment of the best scientific data available, we conclude that climate change exacerbates the impacts to iiwi from mosquito-borne disease, and this effect is likely to continue and worsen in the future. Air temperature in Hawaii has increased in the past century and particularly since the 1970s, with the greatest increases at higher elevations, and several conservative climate change models project continued warming in Hawaii into the future. As a result, the temperature barrier to the development and transmission of avian malaria will continue to move up in elevation in response to warmer conditions, leading to the curtailment or loss of disease-free habitats for iiwi. We briefly discuss below three climate studies that conservatively predict the iiwi will lose between 60 and 90 percent of its current (and already limited) disease-free range by the end of this century, with significant effects occurring by mid-century.
Climate change is a stressor that is likely to significantly exacerbate the effects of avian malaria on iiwi both directly through increased prevalence and mortality, and indirectly through the loss of disease-free habitat. Air temperature in Hawaii has increased in the past century and particularly since the 1970s, with greater increases at high elevation (Giambelluca
Benning
Fortini
Liao
All three of these studies consistently predict a significant loss of disease-free habitat for iiwi with consequent severe reductions in population size and distribution by the year 2100, with significant changes likely to be observed as early as 2040. As the iiwi's numbers and distribution continue to decline, the remaining small, isolated populations become increasingly vulnerable to loss of ohia forest habitat from other stressors such as ROD, as well as other environmental catastrophes and demographic stochasticity, particularly should all remaining iiwi become restricted to a single island (Hawaii Island), as some scenarios suggest.
Climate change will likely exacerbate other stressors to iiwi in addition to disease. Projected increases in temperature and humidity are likely to increase the spatial extent of areas on Hawaii Island vulnerable to ROD (Keith 2016, pers. comm). Changes in the amount and distribution of rainfall in Hawaii likely will affect the quality and extent of mesic and wet forests on which iiwi depend. Hawaii has experienced an overall drying trend since the 1920s, with an average annual decline in precipitation of 1.78 percent (Frazier and Giambelluca 2016, p. 4), but some future projections suggest that areas that currently are wet (windward sides of islands) will experience greater rainfall and more extreme rainfall events, while currently dry areas (leeward sides and high elevations) will become drier (Zhang
The natural susceptibility of native forest birds to introduced diseases, in combination with the observed restriction of Hawaiian honeycreepers to high-elevation forests, led Atkinson
Iiwi is projected to be extirpated from Kauai by 2050 as a result of the island having now passed a “tipping point” where increasing temperature exposes birds to mosquito-borne disease throughout their remaining range on the island; if the current trends of decline in distribution and abundance continue in a linear fashion in the future, iiwi could be extirpated from Kauai much sooner (Paxton
Rapid ohia death, a new disease that kills ohia trees, is a factor with the potential to exacerbate the threats currently affecting iiwi and reduce the amount of disease-free habitat remaining by destroying high-elevation ohia forest. Unexplained, widespread mortality of ohia trees was first detected in 2012 in lowland forests of the Puna Region of Hawaii Island (Keith
Ohia stands experience rapid and extensive mortality from ROD. In 2014, approximately 15,000 ac (6,000 ha) of ohia forest from Kalapana to Hilo on Hawaii Island experienced greater than 50 percent mortality, with 100 percent mortality in some stands over a two to three year period (Friday
At present, the disease remains restricted to Hawaii Island, where it is spreading rapidly. In 2016, the amount of forest area affected on Hawaii Island was estimated to be more than 50,000 ac (20,235 ha), and this estimate includes a new outbreak in Laupahoehoe Forest Reserve on the Hamakua Coast (Hughes 2016, pers. comm.). The largest affected area is within the Puna District, where infected trees have been observed within approximately 4,000 discontinuous acres (1,619 ha) (Hughes 2016, pers. comm.). In some areas, dead and dying trees affected by the fungus have been observed within the range of iiwi (Hughes 2016, pers. comm.; Keith 2016, pers. comm.). Affected trees are found at elevations ranging from sea level up to approximately 5,000 ft (1,524 m), including at Wailuku Forest near Hakalau Forest NWR (Hughes 2016, pers. comm.), which contains a stable to increasing iiwi population (Paxton
Our species status report evaluated several regulatory and other measures in place today that might address or are otherwise intended to ameliorate the stressors to iiwi. Our analysis concluded that forest habitat protection, conservation, and restoration has the potential to benefit iiwi by protecting and enhancing breeding and foraging areas for the species while simultaneously reducing the abundance of mosquito breeding sites, despite the disease vector's (
Because of the iiwi's extreme susceptibility to avian malaria, habitat to sustain the species must be disease-free. Efforts to restore and manage large, contiguous tracts of native forests have been shown to benefit iiwi, especially when combined with fencing and ungulate removal (LaPointe
New opportunities are emerging, such as large-scale vector control using new tools that have the potential to assist Hawaiian forest birds (LaPointe
We also evaluated several regulations and agreements pertaining to climate change. Although the United States and some other countries have passed some regulations specifically intended to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, the scope and effect of such regulations are limited. Indeed, during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in December 2015, the UNFCCC indicated that, even if all the member countries' intended contributions to greenhouse gas reductions were fully implemented and targets met, the goal of limiting the increase in global average temperature to 2 °C (3.6 °F) by the year 2100 would not be achieved.
Many of the efforts to tackle the primary stressors to iiwi are still in the research and development stage, or are implemented only on a small or limited scale. Because the primary stressor, avian malaria, continues to have negative impacts, and these impacts are exacerbated by climate change, we conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms do not offset these impacts to the species.
We have reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding iiwi populations and the stressors that affect the species. This information includes, notably, a recent comprehensive analysis of iiwi abundance, distribution, and population trends (Paxton
Once one of the most common of the native Hawaiian forest birds, the iiwi has declined across large portions of its range and has been extirpated or nearly so from some islands, and many of the few remaining populations are declining. The iiwi's range is contracting upslope in most areas, and population declines and range contraction are concurrent with increasing prevalence of avian malaria. The iiwi is highly susceptible to avian malaria, and that the prevalence of this disease is moving upslope in Hawaiian forests correlated with temperature increases associated with climate change. This disease and its trend of increasing prevalence at increasing elevation are the chief drivers of observed iiwi population declines and
The documented trend of temperature increase, which is greatest at high elevation, is projected to continue at least through the 21st century. The transmission of avian malaria is currently limited or absent at higher elevations, where temperatures are too cool for the development of the malaria parasite. However, multiple independent modeling efforts consistently project that the prevalence of avian malaria will continue to increase upslope with increasing temperature, eventually eliminating most or all remaining disease-free habitat in the islands. These models, which incorporate data on the distribution of forest birds and on disease transmission, project moderate to high avian malaria transmission at the highest elevations of the iiwi's current range by the end of this century, with some significant effects predicted within the next few decades. As a consequence, significant declines in iiwi populations are projected, on the order of 70 to 90 percent by 2100, depending on the future climate scenario.
The impacts of other stressors to iiwi, such as loss or degradation of native forest by nonnative species (disturbance or destruction by feral ungulates; invasion by nonnative plants; impacts from nonnative pathogens such as ROD), predation by mongooses and feral cats, and small-population stressors such as demographic stochasticity and loss of genetic diversity, have not been well documented or quantified (predation by rats, notably
As the number and distribution of iiwi continue to decline, the remaining small, isolated populations become increasingly vulnerable to environmental catastrophes and demographic stochasticity; this will particularly be the case should all remaining iiwi become restricted to Hawaii Island, as some modeling scenarios suggest. Ninety percent of the rangewide iiwi population is already restricted to Hawaii Island, where ROD has recently emerged as a fast-moving threat to the already limited ohia forest habitat required by iiwi.
In consideration of all of this information, we conclude that avian malaria and possibly avian pox, as exacerbated by the ongoing effects of climate change, pose a threat to iiwi, and the action of these stressors places the species as a whole at an elevated risk of extinction. Because the vast majority of the remaining iiwi population is restricted to the island of Hawaii, we consider ROD to pose a threat to the future viability of iiwi as well, as it may result in major loss of forest within the iiwi's remaining range on that island.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the iiwi. As described in the species status report, in considering the five listing factors, we evaluated many potential stressors to iiwi, including but not limited to: Stressors that may affect the extent or quality of the bird's ohia forest habitat (ROD and ohia rust (both nonnative pathogens), ohia dieback (a natural phenomenon), drought, fires, volcanic eruptions, nonnative plants, and feral ungulates), introduced diseases, predation by introduced mammals, competition with nonnative birds, ectoparasites, climate change, and the effects of small population size. Based on our assessment, disease—particularly avian malaria—is the primary driver in the ongoing declines in abundance and range of iiwi, and climate change substantially exacerbates the impact of disease on the species and will continue to do so into the future.
The greatest current threat to iiwi comes from exposure to introduced diseases carried by nonnative mosquitoes (Factor C). Avian malaria in particular has been clearly demonstrated to result in extremely high mortality of iiwi; avian pox may have significant effects on iiwi as well, although the evidence is not as clear or measurable. These diseases have resulted in significant losses of the once ubiquitous iiwi, which remains highly susceptible and, as of present, shows no clear indication of having developed substantial resistance or tolerance. Exposure to these diseases is ongoing, and is expected to increase as a consequence of the effects of climate change (Factor E).
Several climate model projections predict that continued increases in temperature due to climate change will greatly exacerbate the impacts of avian diseases upon iiwi due to loss of disease-free habitat. Several iiwi populations, including those on Molokai, Kauai, West Maui, and possibly Oahu—all lower in elevation than East Maui and Hawaii Island—are already extremely small in size or are represented by only a few occasional individuals, probably owing to the loss of disease-free habitat. Iiwi may face extirpation in these places due to the inability to overcome the effects of malaria. The species is expected to first become restricted to Hawaii Island, perhaps by the year 2040. By the end of the century, the existence of iiwi is uncertain due to the ongoing loss of disease-free habitat; the potential impacts to ohia forests from ROD and other stressors could increase the risk to iiwi as well. These threats to iiwi are ongoing, most are rangewide, are expected to increase in the future, and are significant because they will likely result in increased mortality of iiwi and loss of remaining populations, as well as further decreases in the availability and amount of disease-free habitat at high elevation. As discussed above, the existing regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to address these threats (Factor D).
Some of the other stressors contributed to past declines in iiwi, or negatively affect the species or its habitat today; however, of the additional stressors considered, we found no information to suggest that any is currently a key factor in the ongoing declines in abundance and range of iiwi, although they may be contributing or exacerbating factors. Habitat loss and alteration (Factor A) caused by
We do not have any information that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) poses a threat to iiwi.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We considered whether the iiwi meets either of these definitions, and find that the iiwi meets the definition of a threatened species for the reasons described below.
We considered whether the iiwi is currently in danger of extinction and determined that endangered status is not appropriate. Although the species has experienced significant reductions in both abundance and range, at the present time the species is still found on multiple islands, and the species as a whole still occurs in relatively high numbers. Additionally, disease-free habitat currently remains available for iiwi in high-elevation ohia forests with temperatures sufficiently cool to prevent the development of the malarial parasite. For these reasons, we do not consider the iiwi to be in imminent danger of extinction, although this formerly common species has experienced threats of such severity and magnitude that it has now become highly vulnerable to continued decline and local extirpation, such that the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, as explained below.
Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we expect that additional iiwi population declines will be observed range-wide within the next few decades, and indications are that declines are already taking place on Kauai and in some Maui and Hawaii Island populations as a result of increasing temperatures and consequent exposure to avian malaria at some elevations where the disease is uncommon or absent today. Iiwi has a very high observed mortality rate when exposed to avian malaria, and the warming effects of climate change will result in increased exposure of the remaining iiwi populations to this disease, especially at high elevation. Peer-reviewed results of modeling experiments project that malaria transmission rates and effects on iiwi populations will begin increasing at high elevations by mid-century, and result in population declines of 70 to 90 percent by the year 2100. We thus conclude that the iiwi is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all of its range within the foreseeable future. Because the iiwi is not in imminent danger of extinction, but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future, it meets the definition of a threatened species. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the iiwi as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the iiwi is threatened throughout all of its range, under the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37577 (July 1, 2014)) (SPR Policy), if a species warrants listing throughout all of its range, no portion of the species' range can be a “significant” portion of its range. While it is the Service's position under the SPR Policy that undertaking no further analysis of “significant portion of its range” in this circumstance is consistent with the language of the Act, we recognize that the Policy is currently under judicial review, so we also took the additional step of considering whether there could be any significant portions of the species' range where the species is in danger of extinction. We evaluated whether there is substantial information indicating that there are any portions of the species' range: (1) That may be “significant,” and (2) where the species may be in danger of extinction. In practice, a key part of identifying portions appropriate for further analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated. For the iiwi, the primary driver of its status is avian malaria. The prevalence of this disease is moving upslope in Hawaiian forests correlated with temperature increases associated with climate change. These threats are affecting the species throughout its entire range; therefore, there is not a meaningful geographical concentration of threats. As a result, even if we were to undertake a detailed SPR analysis, there would not be any portions of the species' range where the threats are harming the species to a greater degree such that it is in danger of extinction in that portion.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition from listing will result in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the iiwi's habitat that may require a conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph, include but are not limited to, management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service; actions within the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and branches of the Department of Defense (DOD); and activities funded or authorized under the Federal Highway Administration, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and DOD construction activities related to training or other military missions.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. We are not proposing to issue a special rule pursuant to section 4(d) for this species. Therefore, the provisions of 50 CFR 17.31(a) and (b) would apply. These regulatory provisions apply the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act to threatened wildlife and make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import, export, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, or for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Development of land or the conversion of native ohia forest, including the construction of any infrastructure (
(2) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of this species at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(3) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey upon the iiwi, such as the new introduction of nonnative predators or competing birds to the State of Hawaii; and
(4) Certain research activities: Collection and handling of iiwi for research that may result in displacement or death of individuals.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Ecological Services Field Office (see
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for the pearl darter (
This rule becomes effective October 20, 2017.
This final rule is available on the internet at
Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 601-321-1122. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Please refer to the September 21, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 64857) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
For a more detailed discussion of the taxonomy, biology, status, and threats affecting the species, please refer to the proposed listing rule. In the proposed rule, we evaluated the biological status of the species and factors affecting its continued existence. Our assessment was based upon the best available scientific and commercial data on the status of the species, including past, present, and future threats.
In the proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 21, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Hattiesburg American, Mississippi Press, and Clarion-Ledger on October 2, 2016. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed in the more specific response to comments below.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with pearl darter and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from all three of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for new substantive information regarding the listing of the pearl darter. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule. Where appropriate, we incorporated new information into the final rule as a result of the peer reviewer comments, including new survey information. Other substantive peer reviewer comments are below.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The proposed rule was reviewed by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks; the Mississippi Forestry Commission; and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The individual associated with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks also served as a peer reviewer, and his comment is addressed in Comment 1 above. The State agencies generally concurred with our methods and commented that the literature and data were thorough and properly documented. They stated that we should withhold our final listing decision until their surveys in the Pearl River drainage had been completed. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks recently provided additional information from their recent site surveys. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries agreed that there were no recent records from the Pearl River system despite recent sampling efforts. An issue raised by the Mississippi Forestry Commission is addressed below.
(6)
We received five comments from the public, two of which are addressed in Comment 6, above; the three other commenters simply expressed their support for the proposed listing.
This final rule incorporates minor changes to our proposed rule based on the comments we received, as discussed above in Summary of Comments and Recommendations, and newly available survey information. The survey data allowed us to refine distribution information; thus, the final total current range of the species is different from that in the proposed rule. Many small, nonsubstantive changes and corrections were made throughout the document in response to comments (
• We now estimate the total current range of the pearl darter in the Pascagoula watershed to be 668 kilometers (km) (415 miles (mi)) based on a reanalysis of collection records and recent survey results. Detailed information about the species' range within each of the seven river/creek systems is presented in the preamble of this rule, under
• Additional information on habitat and population structure from peer reviewers and recent studies (Wagner
• Additional information and suggestions from peer reviewers was added to clarify and improve the accuracy of the information in the Distribution, Habitat, Biology, and Threats sections of the preamble to the proposed rule.
• Additional information on the species' abundance and probable cause of decline in the Pearl River, as related to the potential threat to existing populations in the Pascagoula system, from two peer reviewers was added into the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section of this rule, below.
• Additional narrative on historical threats within the Pearl River basin, as well as additional historical and current threats affecting water quality within the Pascagoula River basin, including increased brine concentration from oil and gas production and pulp mill effluent related to pulp, paper, and lumber mills, was added to the preamble.
Below we present a summary of the biological and distributional information discussed in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 64857; September 21, 2016). We also present new information published or obtained since the proposed rule was published (see Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, above).
The pearl darter (
The pearl darter is historically known from localized sites within the Pearl and Pascagoula River drainages in
Today, the pearl darter occurs in scattered sites within an approximately 668-km (415-mi) area of the Pascagoula drainage, including the Pascagoula (101 km, 63 mi), Chickasawhay (257 km, 160 mi), Leaf (186 km, 115 mi), Chunky (31 km, 19 mi), and Bouie (24 km, 15 mi) Rivers and Okatoma (37 km, 23 mi) and Black Creeks (32 km, 20 mi) (Wagner
The average catch at known occupied sites, using standard sampling (30 minutes with heavy leaded seine) is 2.1 individuals (Wagner
The pearl darter occurs in low-gradient, coastal plain rivers and creeks (Suttkus
There is no specific information available on the diet of the pearl darter. However, the channel darter (
Below we present a summary of the threats information from the proposed listing rule. We also present new information published or obtained since the proposed rule was published, including information received during the public comment period.
Members of the
Water quality degradation, particularly non-point source pollution from incompatible commercial and industrial development and land use practices, has been a major concern within the Pearl River basin (TNC 2004, p. 18). Similarly, the Pascagoula River system suffers from acute and localized water quality degradation by nonpoint source pollution in association with surface, stormwater, and effluent runoffs from urbanization and municipal areas (MDEQ 2005c, p. 23; 2005d, p. 16). “Total Maximum Daily Loads” (TMDLs), a term in the U.S. Clean Water Act describing a benchmark set for a certain pollutant to bring water quality up to the applicable standard, have been established for 89 segments of the Pascagoula River basin, many of which
Most water quality threats are due to increased sediment loads and variations in pH (MDEQ 2014a, pp. 1-51; 2008a, pp. 13-15). Sediment in stormwater runoff increases water turbidity and temperature and originates locally from poorly maintained construction sites, timber harvest tracts, agricultural fields, clearing of riparian vegetation, and gravel extraction in the river floodplain. Suttkus
Nonpoint source pollution is a localized threat to the pearl darter within the drainage, and is more prevalent in areas where certified best management practices (BMPs) are not utilized. The use of certified BMPs during land-altering activities can greatly reduce impacts to water quality. Certified BMPs, currently implemented by the forestry industry (
Historically, timber harvesting and processing was extensive in the Pearl River basin, and at one time, the basin was home to one of the most important lumber centers in the United States (Thigpen 1965, pp. 66-69). Pulp and paper manufacturing began in the Pascagoula watershed in Mississippi with three major mills (Monthly Review 1958, p. 83). Today, there are six major pulp mills in the Pascagoula River basin whose effluent may be a threat to the pearl darter. Paper mill effluent is a contributor to water quality degradation and is suspected to have had some influence on the extirpation of the pearl darter in the Pearl River system (Slack
Numerous studies have documented the effects of pulp and paper mill effluents on fish populations (Beyer
Additionally, some contaminants may bind with one another (
There are 15 permitted point source discharge sites within the Bouie River system (MDEQ 2005a, p. 6) and an unknown amount of nonpoint runoff sites. Municipal and industrial discharges during periods of low flow (
Localized wastewater effluent into the Leaf River from the City of Hattiesburg is negatively impacting water quality (Hattiesburg American 2015, pp. 1-2; Mississippi River Collaboration 2014, p. 1). Existing housing, recreational cabins, and trailers along the banks of the Leaf River between I-59 and the town of Estabutchie cause nutrient loading through treated sewage and septic water effluent (Mississippi River Collaboration 2014, p. 1). In 1997, Bart and Piller (p. 12) noted extensive algal growth during warmer months in the Leaf and Bouie Rivers, indicating nutrient and organic enrichment and decreases in dissolved oxygen and pH changes. Today, at specific locations, the water quality of the Bouie and Leaf Rivers and their tributaries continues to be negatively impacted by sediment, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and elevated nutrients (MDEQ 2016, p. 86, 91; 2014a, p. 18, 21, 32; 2005a, pp. 1-26; 2004, pp. 1-29).
Nonpoint and point source pollution from oil and gas exploration, including drill field construction, active drilling, and pipeline easements, may add localized pollutants into the Pascagoula River basin during stormwater runoff events if BMPs are not used. There is one major oil refinery within the basin along with 6 oil pumping stations, 10 major crude pipelines, 4 major product oil pipelines, and 5 major gas and more than 25 lesser gas lines stretching hundreds of miles and crisscrossing the
Alternative oil and gas collection methods (
Piller
Pearl darters are not found in impounded waters and are intolerant of lentic (standing water) habitats that may be formed by gravel mining or other landscape-altering practices. Incompatible sand and gravel mining and its disruption of topography, vegetation, and flow pattern of streams is considered a major stressor to the Pearl River system where the pearl darter once occurred (TNC 2004, p. 16). In the species' current range in the Pascagoula system, the results of historical sand and gravel dredging impacts have been a concern for the Bouie and Leaf Rivers (MDEQ 2000, pp. 1-98). Historically, the American Sand and Gravel Company (1995, p. B4) has mined sand and gravel using a hydraulic suction dredge, operating within the banks or adjacent to the Bouie and Leaf Rivers. Large gravel bars of the river and its floodplain have been removed over the past 50 years, creating open-water areas that function as deep lake systems (American Sand and Gravel Company 1995, pp. B4-B8). The creation of these large, open-water areas has accelerated geomorphic processes, specifically headcutting (erosional feature causing an abrupt drop in the streambed) that has adversely affected the flora and fauna of many coastal plain streams (Patrick
Sedimentation from unstable banks and loose, unconsolidated streambeds (Bart and Piller 1997, p. 12) is likely impacting the pearl darters in the Bouie River and Black Creek. Mossa and Coley (2004, p. 17) determined that, of the major tributaries in the Pascagoula basin, the Bouie River was the least stable. Channel enlargement of the Bouie River showed higher than background values associated with avulsions (the rapid abandonment of a river channel and the formation of a new river channel) into floodplain pits and increased sedimentation. In addition, channel enlargement of 400 to 500 percent in the Bouie River has occurred at specific sites due to instream gravel mining (Mossa
In the Bogue Chitto River of the Pearl River basin, Stewart
Dams and other flow control structures within a river can block fish passage, disrupt the natural flow patterns, and cause channel degradation and erosion (see “Geomorphology Changes” section above) that directly impact aquatic life habitat, as well as reduce the capacity of the stream to carry water (TNC 2004, p. 17). Streams with highly altered flow regimes often become wide, shallow, and homogeneous, resulting in poor habitat for many fish species (Bunn and Arthington 2002, pp. 493-498). The decline of the pearl darter in the Pearl River was noted after the construction of low sill dams. Bart (in TNC 2004, p. 5) speculated that, after spawning, young darters in the Pearl River were swept downriver and unable to migrate back upriver due to the low water sills and varied water flow; their limited success year after year likely caused the population to crash. These low sill dams are also thought to have led to the extirpation of the Alabama shad (
The proposed damming of Little and Big Cedar Creeks, tributaries to the Pascagoula River, for establishment of two recreational lakes (George County Lakes) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2015, pp. 1-13) has prompted the American Rivers organization to recently list the Pascagoula River as the 10th most endangered river in the country (American Rivers 2016, pp. 20-21). Though the proposed project is not directly within known pearl darter habitat, the lakes may decrease water quantity entering the lower Pascagoula basin and will likely concentrate pollutants, reduce water flow, and alter downstream food webs and aquatic productivity (Poff and Hart 2002, p. 660).
Habitat modification and resultant water quality degradation are occurring within the pearl darter's current range and likely led to the loss of the species from the Pearl River drainage. Water quality degradation occurs locally from point and nonpoint source pollution in association with land surface, stormwater, and effluent runoff from urbanization, industry, and municipal areas. Of particular concern is the threat of overflooding of storage ponds for industrial effluent, such as that from pulp and paper manufacturing. Increased sediment from a variety of sources, including geomorphological changes and bank instability from past habitat modification, appears to be the major contributor to water quality declines in this species' habitat. Localized sewage and waste water effluent also pose a threat to this species and its habitat. The pearl darter's vulnerability to catastrophic events, particularly the release of pollutants in its habitat from oil spills, train derailments, and hydraulic fracturing, is also a concern due to the abundance of oil wells, pumping stations, gas lines, and railways throughout its habitat, and the increased interest in alternative oil and gas collection methods in the area. The proposed damming of Big and Little Cypress Creeks may decrease water flow and increase nutrient concentration into the Pascagoula River. These threats continue to impact water quality and habitat conditions through much of this species' current range. Therefore, we conclude that habitat degradation is presently a moderate threat to the pearl darter that is expected to continue and possibly increase into the future.
The pearl darter is not a commercially valuable species, and collecting is not considered a factor in its decline. Therefore, we do not consider overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes to be a threat to the pearl darter at this time.
We have no specific information indicating that disease or predation is negatively impacting pearl darter populations. Therefore, we do not consider these factors to be threats to the pearl darter at this time.
The State of Mississippi classifies the pearl darter as endangered (Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 2015, p. 2), and prohibits the collection of the pearl darter for scientific purposes without a State-issued collecting permit. However, as discussed under Factor B, we have no evidence to suggest that scientific collection poses a threat to this species. This State classification conveys no legal protection for the pearl darter's habitat nor does it prohibit habitat degradation, which is the primary threat to the species. The pearl darter receives no protection in Louisiana, where it is considered to have historically occurred (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 2005, p. 39).
The pearl darter and its habitats are afforded some protection from water quality and habitat degradation under the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251
The State of Mississippi maintains water-use classifications through issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits to industries, municipalities, and others that set maximum limits on certain pollutants or pollutant parameters. For water bodies on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired streams, the State is required to establish a TMDL for the pollutants of concern that will improve water quality to the applicable standard. The establishment of TMDLs for 89 river or stream segments and ratings of fair to poor for 39 percent of the tributaries within the Pascagoula basin are indicative of water pollution impacts within the pearl darter's habitat (MDEQ 2008a, p. 17). TMDLs are not an enforced regulation, and only reflect benchmarks for improving water quality; they have not been successful in reducing water quality degradation within this species' habitat, as these streams continue to remain on the 303(d) list of impaired streams.
Mississippi Surface Mining and Reclamation Law, Miss. Code Ann. section 53-7-1
The pearl darter likely receives ancillary protection (
Additional protection of 53,520 hectares (ha) (132,128 acres (ac)) within the Pascagoula basin watershed occurs due to the Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks' management of six Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) within the upper drainage basin for recreational hunting and fishing. Four of the six WMAs (Chickasawhay and Leaf Rivers, Mason and Red Creeks) do not directly border the river system, but they do contain and protect parcels of upland buffer, wetland, and tributaries to the basin. The Pascagoula River and Ward Bayou WMAs (20,329 ha; 50,234 ac) consist of wetland buffer and river/stream reach protecting approximately 106 km (66 mi) of the Pascagoula River main stem (Stowe
These State-managed WMAs and TNC preserves provide a measure of protection for approximately 134 km (84 mi) or 30 percent of the river reaches within this species' current range. Point and nonpoint sediment sources are decreased or reduced by using and monitoring certified BMPs during silviculture, road maintenance, and other landscape-altering activities. However, only short segments of shoreline in the Chickasawhay and Leaf Rivers are within these WMAs. Remaining lands within these segments can be vulnerable to farming and timbering to the bankside edge, and construction of structures such as houses, septic facilities, dams, and ponds. Each land management action can increase stormwater runoff laden with sediment and agricultural and wastewater chemicals. The impact of silvicultural activities on water quality degradation are likely lower than other land-altering activities according to information in the Mississippi Forestry Commission's report (2016, entire) that found certified BMP implementation rates to be high across all silvicultural landscapes in Mississippi.
Despite existing authorities such as the Clean Water Act, pollutants continue to impair the water quality throughout much of the current range of the pearl darter. State and Federal regulatory mechanisms have helped reduce the negative effects of point source and nonpoint source discharges, yet these regulations are difficult to implement, and may not provide adequate protection for sensitive species like the pearl darter. Thus, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect the pearl darter from the impact of other threats.
The pearl darter has always been considered rare (Deacon
Species that are restricted in range and population size are more likely to suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift, potentially increasing their susceptibility to inbreeding depression, decreasing their ability to adapt to environmental changes, and reducing the fitness of individuals (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. 117-146; Soulé 1980, pp. 157-158). It is likely that some of the pearl darter populations are below the effective population size required to maintain long-term genetic and population viability (Soulé 1980, pp. 162-164).
The long-term viability of a species is founded on the conservation of numerous local populations throughout its geographic range (Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). The presence of viable, separate populations is essential for a species to recover and adapt to environmental change (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, pp. 264-297; Harris 1984, pp. 93-104). Inbreeding and loss of neutral genetic variation associated with small population size reduces the fitness of the population (Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. 230-237) and accelerates population decline (Fagan and Holmes 2006, pp. 51-60). The species' small numbers within scattered locations, coupled with its lack of genetic variability, may decrease the species' ability to adapt or recover from major hydrological events that impact potential spawning habitat (Clark and Schaefer 2015, pp. 18-22).
Fish and aquatic communities and habitat, including that of the pearl darter, may be changed by hurricanes (Schaefer
Numerous long-term climate changes have been observed including widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014, p. 4). Climate change, and the resultant shifts in spatial distribution, may result in increased fragmentation which would increase the vulnerability of any isolated populations to future extinction (Comet
Climate change has the potential to increase the vulnerability of the pearl darter to random catastrophic events (Thomas
The pearl darter's limited geographic range, fragmented distribution within the Pascagoula River system, small population numbers, and low genetic diversity threaten this species' long-term viability. These threats are current and are likely to continue or increase in the future, and would be exacerbated by climate change.
The threats that affect the pearl darter are important on a threat-by-threat basis but are even more significant in combination. Due to the loss of the species from the Pearl River system, the pearl darter is now confined to a single drainage system. The species continues to be subjected to water quality degradation from point and nonpoint source pollution in association with land-altering activities, discharges from municipalities, and geomorphological changes from past gravel mining. The laws and regulations directed at preventing water quality degradation have been ineffective at providing for the conservation of the pearl darter. Furthermore, these threats and their effect on this species are exacerbated due to the pearl darter's small population numbers, localized distribution, and low genetic diversity, which reduce its genetic fitness and resilience to possible catastrophic events. Though projecting possible synergistic effects of climate change on the pearl darter is somewhat speculative, climate change, and its effects of increased water temperatures leading to stronger storms and more frequent droughts, will have a greater negative impact on species with limited ranges and small population sizes, such as the pearl darter. While these threats or stressors may act in isolation, it is more probable that many stressors are acting simultaneously (or in combination) on the pearl darter, having a greater cumulative negative effect than any individual stressor or threat.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the pearl darter. The pearl darter has been extirpated from the Pearl River system, and it is now confined to the Pascagoula River watershed. The species occurs in low numbers within its current range, and continues to be at risk throughout all of its range due to the immediacy, severity, and scope of threats from habitat degradation and range curtailment (Factor A) and other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E). Existing regulatory mechanisms have been inadequate in ameliorating these threats (Factor D).
Anthropogenic activities, such as general land development, agriculture and silviculture, oil and gas development (especially when BMPs were not implemented during these activities), along with inadequate sewage treatment, uncontrolled stormwater runoff, pulp mill effluent, past gravel mining and resultant geomorphological changes, and construction of dams or sills, have all contributed to the degradation of stream habitats and water quality within this species' range (Factor A). These land use activities have led to chemical and physical changes in the main stem rivers and tributaries that continue to affect the species through negative impacts to its habitat. Specific water quality threats include inputs of sediments covering bottom stream substrates, increased turbidity, and inputs of dissolved solids. These threats, especially the inputs of dissolved solids, chemical-laden effluent, sedimentation, and geomorphic changes, have had profound negative effects on pearl darter populations, as demonstrated in the Pearl River basin, and have been the primary factor in the species' decline. Existing regulatory mechanisms (
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We find that the pearl darter is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats currently impacting the species. Foreseeable future for this species was determined to be approximately 20 years, which is based on our best professional judgement of the projected future conditions related to threats identified impacting this species. The overall range has been reduced substantially, and the remaining habitat and populations are threatened by a variety of factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the species over time. The threats are not expected to change substantially within this 20-year timeframe, as water quality degradation continues to pose a risk locally despite existing regulations, and land development and land-altering activities are expected to increase. The risk of becoming endangered during this time is high because populations confined to this single watershed are fragmented and genetic diversity within the species is low. Many of the populations are small and likely below the effective population size needed to maintain long-term population viability which makes this species particularly vulnerable to catastrophic events. Though there is uncertainty about the magnitude of effects of climate change on the pearl darter, the frequency and intensity of storms affecting the Pascagoula River watershed are evident today and predicted to increase during this timeframe.
We find that endangered species status is not appropriate for this species. Despite low population numbers and numerous threats, the Chickasawhay and Leaf Rivers, within the upper Pascagoula River drainage, appear to support reproducing populations. In addition, the magnitude of threats is considered to be moderate overall, since the threats are having a localized impact on the species and its habitat. For example, water quality degradation, the most prevalent threat, is not as pervasive within areas where BMPs are utilized, and geomorphic changes caused by historic sand and gravel mining are also sporadic within its habitat. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the pearl darter as threatened in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the pearl darter is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). While it is the Service's position under the Policy that undertaking no further analysis of “significant portion of its range” in this circumstance is consistent with the language of the Act, we recognize that the Policy is currently under judicial review, so we also took the additional step of considering whether there could be any significant portions of the species' range where the species is in danger of extinction. We evaluated whether there is substantial information indicating that there are any portions of the species' range: (1) That may be “significant,” and (2) where the species may be in danger of extinction. In practice, a key part of identifying portions appropriate for further analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated. The threats affecting the species are throughout its entire range; therefore, there is not a meaningful geographical concentration of threats. As a result, even if we were to undertake a detailed “significant portion of its range” analysis, there would not be any portions of the species' range where the threats are harming the species to a greater degree such that it is in danger of extinction in that portion.
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed...on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed...upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.”
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that we designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. In our September 21, 2016, proposed rule to list the darter (81 FR 64857), we determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent. We also found that critical habitat for the pearl darter was not determinable because the specific information sufficient to perform the required analysis of the impacts of the designation is currently lacking, such as information on areas to be proposed for designation and the potential economic impacts associated with designation of these areas. We are continuing the process of obtaining information on the economic impacts of our critical habitat designation, and, once this process is completed, we intend to publish our proposed critical habitat designation for the pearl darter in the
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Mississippi will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the pearl darter. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the pearl darter. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include actions on lands under ownership by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, construction and maintenance of gas and oil pipelines and power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency pesticide registration, construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration, and funding of various projects administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as applied to threatened wildlife and codified at 50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and certified best management practices (
(2) Normal residential and urban landscape activities, such as mowing, edging, fertilizing, etc.
(3) Normal pipeline/transmission line easement maintenance.
(4) Normal bridge, culvert, and roadside maintenance consistent with
Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species.
(2) Introduction of nonnative fish that compete with or prey upon the pearl darter.
(3) Unlawful discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals, contaminants, sediments, fracking and oil waste water, waste water effluent, or other pollutants into waters supporting the pearl darter that kills or injures individuals, or otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining behaviors such as spawning, feeding, or sheltering.
(4) Destruction or alteration of the species' habitat (
(5) Unpermitted gravel mining, oil and gas processes, silviculture, and agricultural processes that result in direct or indirect destruction of riparian bankside habitat or in channel habitat in waters supporting the pearl darter that kills or injures individuals, or otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining behaviors such as spawning, feeding, or sheltering.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. The pearl darter is not known to occur within any tribal lands or waters.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the Sonoyta mud turtle (
This rule is effective October 20, 2017.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st Ave #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; telephone 602-242-0210. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Sonoyta mud turtle (81 FR 64829; September 21, 2016) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this subspecies.
We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of the Sonoyta mud turtle, and prepared a report of the assessment, which provides a thorough account of the subspecies' overall viability. We define viability as the ability of the subspecies to persist over the long term and avoid extinction. In this section, we summarize the conclusions of that assessment, which can be accessed at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0103 on
To assess Sonoyta mud turtle viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years); representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes); and redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts). In general, the more redundant, representative, and resilient a species is, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the Sonoyta mud turtle's ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and subspecies levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the subspecies' viability.
We evaluated the change in resiliency, representation, and redundancy from the past until the present, and projected the anticipated future states of these conditions. To forecast the biological condition into the future, we devised plausible future scenarios by using expert information on the primary stressors anticipated in the future to the Sonoyta mud turtle: habitat loss and degradation (
The Sonoyta mud turtle is a freshwater turtle encountered in or near water in an otherwise arid environment that commonly experiences drought and extreme heat (ambient temperatures can exceed 45 degrees Celsius (°C) (113 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)). The Sonoyta mud turtle is one of two recognized subspecies of Sonora mud turtle (
Minimum age of sexual maturity of female Sonoyta mud turtles is just under 6 years, and males around 4 years (Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 14-16). Mating occurs in water from April to late June. Ovulation and shelling of eggs begins in June, and eggs remain in the oviducts until the monsoon rains occur from mid to late July through September (van Loben Sels
The Sonoyta mud turtle is found in southern Arizona and northwestern Mexico and depends on aquatic habitat with adjacent terrestrial habitat. Its habitats commonly experience drought and extreme heat. Historically, the Sonoyta mud turtle was limited in its
In the SSA Report, we define a population of Sonoyta mud turtles as a group of interbreeding individuals living in an ecological community and separated from other populations by barriers including desert upland (overland, not connected by riparian or xeroriparian habitat) or in-channel distances that lack water most of the time. Currently, five populations of Sonoyta mud turtles occur. Three of these populations are historical populations—Quitobaquito Springs, and the Sonoyta and Papalote reaches of the Rio Sonoyta. However, the Sonoyta reach has now been reduced to a much smaller reach referred to as Xochimilco. There are two new populations—the Sonoyta sewage lagoon and Quitovac in Mexico, which were historically unknown and only discovered in 2002 but likely were present since the 1990s (Knowles
The population at Quitobaquito Springs has been extensively monitored since the early 1980s. Surveys in the Rio Sonoyta basin in Sonora, Mexico, from 2001 through 2006 provide most of our knowledge of the current populations in Mexico (table 3.2.2 of the SSA Report; Paredes-Aguilar and Rosen 2003, entire; Knowles
Sonoyta mud turtles depend on aquatic habitat for foraging, shelter, and mating and terrestrial habitat for nesting and estivating. The Sonoyta mud turtle historically occupied habitat in cienegas and streams supported by groundwater-fed springs. Natural aquatic habitats of Sonoyta mud turtles are sustained by groundwater discharged from springs and augmented by seasonal rainfall. Terrestrial habitat that maintains soil moisture needed for Sonoyta mud turtles occurs in riparian areas along the banks of ponds and streams, including intermittently dry sections of a stream channel. However, natural aquatic habitats are highly limited. Sonoyta mud turtles can also be sustained by modified natural habitats or completely human-created habitats that provide similar permanent or almost permanent surface water. Currently, populations still occur within stream habitat, but all the cienegas have been modified from their natural state.
For the Sonoyta mud turtle to maintain viability, its populations, or some portion of its populations, must be resilient enough to withstand stochastic events such as fluctuations in water levels, habitat modification, and introduction of nonnative predators. In the SSA Report, we categorized the potential resiliency of populations of the subspecies. We developed four different resiliency levels: High, medium, low, and none. In a highly resilient Sonoyta mud turtle population, all or the majority of turtles are able to complete their life functions, breeding maintains a stable or increasing population, and the population is able to withstand stochastic events or recover from stochastic events from connected populations. Influencing those factors are elements of Sonoyta mud turtle habitat that determine whether survivorship among age classes is achieved, thereby increasing the resiliency of populations. These factors include perennial or near perennial water (
Sonoyta mud turtles require perennial or mostly perennial water to complete their life-history functions and avoid desiccation. We define near-perennial as water present more than 10 to 11 months of the year for multiple years. Aquatic habitat in ponds and streams with water 2 meters (m) (6.5 feet (ft)) deep, with a rocky, muddy, or sandy substrate, and emergent or submergent vegetation, or both is needed (NPS 2015, p. 2; Paredes-Aguilar and Rosen 2003, p. 5-7; Rosen 2003, p. 5; Rosen
Sonoyta mud turtles need terrestrial habitat that maintains soil moisture for Sonoyta mud turtles in riparian areas along the banks of ponds and streams, including intermittently dry sections of stream channels. Riparian habitat provides shadier, cooler, and moister conditions than the adjacent upland areas. Sonoyta mud turtles likely need moist soil for nesting to prevent desiccation of eggs and estivation sites to prevent desiccation of juveniles and adults. Riparian vegetation may also provide some level of protection from terrestrial predators while turtles are out of the water. Sonoyta mud turtles further need accessible shoreline without insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to allow for movement between wetted sites, between aquatic habitat and terrestrial nest sites, and between water and estivation sites.
Sonoyta mud turtle hatchlings and juveniles need shoreline invertebrate fauna, while subadults and adults need bottom dwelling (
Sonoyta mud turtles need aquatic habitat free of problematic nonnative predators and competitors such as crayfish, American bullfrogs, sunfish, black bullheads, African cichlid fishes (tilapia), western mosquitofish, and exotic turtles. Competition between nonnative species and mud turtles for food likely results in disruption of the food chain and alteration of the invertebrate community (Taylor
Sonoyta mud turtles need genetic or ecological diversity to adapt to changing environmental conditions. The more representation, or diversity, a species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes (natural or human-caused) in its environment. Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or environmental diversity within and among populations and gauges the probability that a species is capable of adapting to environmental changes. Currently, the Sonoyta mud turtle exhibits genetic and ecological diversity. Maintaining gene flow among populations and counteracting genetic drift and deleterious effects of inbreeding connectivity among populations are needed. A minimum of 1 and maximum of 10 migrants per generation is needed to successfully breed in populations of a species (Mills and Allendorf 1996, p. 1517; Nathan
The Sonoyta mud turtle needs multiple resilient populations spread over its historical range distributed in such a way that a catastrophic event will not result in the loss of all populations. In addition, hydrologic connectivity is needed for a population to recover from a catastrophic event. We do not have an estimate of how many populations are needed to withstand localized loss of habitat and maintain redundancy. However, the loss of Quitobaquito Springs, Quitovac, and either Rio Sonoyta Papalote or Rio Sonoyta Xochimilco would reduce the representation for the subspecies.
The primary negative factor affecting the future viability of the Sonoyta mud turtle is continued loss of water that supports aquatic and riparian habitat. The sources of water loss affecting Sonoyta mud turtles include groundwater pumping, drought, changes to wastewater infrastructure, consumption by livestock, surface water diversion, and habitat manipulation. Of these sources, water loss caused by drought and groundwater pumping, both of which are exacerbated by climate change and changes to wastewater infrastructure, are the primary causes of population-level impacts to the Sonoyta mud turtle. The other sources of water loss are not likely to have population-level impacts unless mining near Quitovac is intensified and unregulated. However, the Quitovac site is routinely dredged, resulting in direct impacts to Sonoyta mud turtles and prey. All of these factors are additive in terms of impacts to populations that are already stressed by the primary activities causing population-level impacts. In addition, impacts from climate change (discussed below) are expected to exacerbate water loss.
Ground water pumping impacts the amount of surface water in areas used by Sonoyta mud turtles because the perennial sections of the Rio Sonoyta as well as the pond at Quitobaquito Springs and Quitovac are supplied by ground water. Diminished water reduces the amount of space, prey, and cover (from predators and for estivation) available to mud turtles. Reduction in aquatic habitat (
Sonora mud turtles that live in permanent bodies of water have shown highly aquatic behavior with little terrestrial behavior or movement between water sources, while Sonora mud turtles in more ephemeral habits have been documented moving through or out of dry stream beds to reach wetted pools, for winter hibernation, or for estivation during drought as a drought-survival strategy (Hall and Steidl, 2007, pp. 406-408; Hensley
Reduced surface water and ground water reduce the survival and growth of vegetation in the riparian areas. Reductions in riparian habitat decrease subsurface moisture needed for nesting sites; drought refuge for hatchlings, juvenile, and adult turtles; and shelter from large flooding events for hatchlings, juveniles, and adults. It is likely that only adults will be the most resistant to severe droughts. Decreased riparian vegetation will lead to deterioration of the microclimate that provides soil moisture for nest sites and burrows.
Water permanence may also affect the diversity of aquatic invertebrate prey available for mud turtles, with ephemeral habitats having lower diversity than intermittent or perennial habitats (Stanila 2009, p. 38), in addition to the presence of nonnative aquatic species that compete for prey. When invertebrates are abundant, and competition is low, turtles grow rapidly and have sufficient lipid content to support reproduction. Turtle recruitment is likely driven in significant part by invertebrate prey available because nutritional stress on females may result in a reduction in annual survivorship (Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 41). Competition from nonnatives could decrease the type and amount of aquatic invertebrate prey available to Sonoyta mud turtles (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-40) and lead to lower fitness of turtles. Because high average annual juvenile survivorship is required for populations of long-lived organisms to maintain population stability (Congdon
The current prognosis of climate change impacts on the Sonoran Desert includes fewer frost days; warmer temperatures; greater water demand by plants, animals, and people; and an increased frequency of extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts, and floods) (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24). Any reductions in annual rainfall, coupled with the hotter temperatures that are projected with very high confidence (and that will alone bring reductions in aquifer inputs due to higher evaporation rates), would have negative effects on aquifers across the Southwest. Virtually any plausible future climate scenario projects longer dry spells between rains, which can have more severe impacts on the landscape, especially in spring and summer (Lenart 2008, entire).
Currently, five known populations of Sonoyta mud turtle remain. The perennial water supporting four of the five turtle extant populations has been reduced, and all five populations are isolated from one another. For the sole population in the United States, discharge from Quitobaquito Springs has diminished by 42 percent over the past 35 years, with 5,500 cubic feet (cf)/day average discharge measured in the period 1981-1992, down to 3,157 cf/day measured from 2005-present (Carruth 1996, pp. 13, 21; Holm 2016, pers. comm.). Thus far, declining spring flow has been associated with less than 30 centimeters (cm) (12 inches (in)) of surface water level decline at the pond,
In Mexico, the two populations in the Xochimilco and Papalote reaches of the Rio Sonoyta are isolated from one another even more than they used to be historically because the lengths of the perennial reaches have contracted. Added to this, a previously extant population in the Santa Domingo reach that was located between Xochimilco and Papalote reaches is no longer extant due to a complete lack of perennial water. The perennial waters in these three reaches have decreased by 80 to 92 percent from 19-27 km (11.8-16.8 mi) historically to approximately 1.5-5.5 km (0.9-3.4 mi) currently (table 1 and figure 3.1.1 of the SSA Report). Periodic movement between populations in the Rio Sonoyta basin may occur during prolonged periods of high rainfall, but the extent of immigration and emigration of turtles is unknown. However, it is thought to be rare to limited due to distances between populations coupled with limited hydrological connection.
Currently, the status of the Xochimilco population is unknown, but abundance is almost certainly far less, considering the reduced spatial and temporal extent of surface water. A total of 57 turtles have been marked in the Papalote reach in 2017, for a mark-recapture study that will provide better information on the status of the Sonoyta mud turtle in this reach in the next few years.
The population at the Sonoyta sewage lagoon adjacent to the Rio Sonoyta has the most reliable source of water at this time and may be the largest of the five populations based on water availability, but we have no current data on numbers of turtles at this site. If a new wastewater treatment plant is completed for the town of Sonoyta, the existing Sonoyta sewage lagoons will be drained and the new wastewater treatment plant will have 75 percent less habitat available for Sonoyta mud turtles. The fourth population in Mexico at Quitovac is outside of the Rio Sonoyta watershed, in the Rio Guadalupe basin, and has no present-day hydrological connection to the Rio Sonoyta. In addition, the Quitovac site was just recently completely dredged and the current status of Sonoyta mud turtles at that location is unknown.
The future resiliency of Sonoyta mud turtle populations depends on future water quantity, available riparian habitat, available invertebrate prey, and absence of certain nonnative aquatic species. In addition, if the new wastewater treatment plant becomes operational and replaces the Sonoyta sewage lagoons, this will be a reduction in water and riparian habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle. Further, only a portion of the Sonoyta mud turtles are likely to be transplanted. Because there is uncertainty regarding how and when surface water loss and associated riparian habitat impairment may occur, as well as if and when various nonnative species may occur, we projected what the effects to the Sonoyta mud turtle may be in terms of population resiliency and species redundancy and representation under three plausible future scenarios over three meaningful time frames: 7 years, 35 years, and 70 years. We chose 7 years based on the area's drought cycle, 35 years because it incorporates both the maximum life span of the species and the mid-century climate projections for the southwestern United States, and 70 years because it is within the range of the available drought and climate change model forecasts and is about twice the maximum life span of the species (Lenart 2008, entire; Strittholt
Since surface water availability limits the other elements and the carrying capacity of the site, the ranking of the surface water was weighted higher than the other metrics. This means that if surface water was ranked moderate and all other elements were ranked high, the overall ranking would be moderate. We are presenting the moderate case scenarios, as we have determined that this is the most likely future scenario based on our understanding of the future conditions of climate change and groundwater pumping.
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered comments we received from the public and peer reviewers on the SSA Report and proposed rule. We received numerous comments and new information from peer reviewers on the science and analysis in the SSA Report, and we have updated the SSA Report to incorporate these accordingly. In addition, we met with the National Park Service (NPS) to discuss the SSA Report, and we updated the SSA Report with the information NPS provided. This final rule incorporates minor changes to our proposed listing based on the comments we received, as discussed below in
In the proposed rule published on September 21, 2016 (81 FR 64829), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 21, 2016. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Arizona Daily Star. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.
We reviewed all comments we received in response to the proposed rule for substantive issues and new information. We did not receive any comments from Federal agencies, States, or Tribes, and the public comments we received only stated a preference for listing or not listing the subspecies without including any substantive comments regarding the sufficiency of our analysis. All substantive information provided by peer reviewers during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from eight knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the Sonoyta mud turtle and its habitat, biological needs, and threats, or the nominate subspecies Sonora mud turtle. We received responses from six of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of Sonoyta mud turtle. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusion, and provided additional and pertinent information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the SSA Report and, therefore, the final rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the SSA Report and this final rule as appropriate.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
We received only comments stating a preference for listing or not listing the subspecies. We did not receive any substantive comments regarding the sufficiency of the analysis.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
The fundamental question before the Service is whether the species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” under the Act. To make this determination, we evaluated the projections of extinction risk, described in terms of the condition of current and future populations and their distribution (taking into account the risk factors and their effects on those populations). For any species, as population condition declines and distribution shrinks, the species' extinction risk increases and overall viability declines.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Sonoyta mud turtle. Currently, the five extant populations are all significantly isolated from one another such that recolonization of areas previously extirpated or areas that may be extirpated is extremely unlikely. Expert input provided during the development of the SSA Report indicated that connectivity or movement among the populations is a rare or nonexistent occurrence. The species' range has been reduced by 80 to 92 percent in the Rio Sonoyta (Factor A) in Mexico, and current distribution is limited to five populations in three ponds totaling less than 7 ha (less than 17.5 ac) and two perennial sections of the Rio Sonoyta totaling 1.5 to 5.5 km (0.9 to 3.4 mi). Two historical populations are extirpated due to loss of perennial water. There are two newly discovered extant populations in addition to the three historical populations that remain. One is within a wastewater treatment plant where the impacts from facility management and water quality make monitoring difficult and may be adverse to Sonoyta mud turtle viability, and the other is outside the Rio Sonoyta basin, which is likely outside the historical range of the species. None of the five populations are classified as having “high” resiliency, described in the SSA Report as “all or the majority of turtles are able to complete their life functions and breeding is successful to maintain a stable or increasing population, and able to withstand stochastic events or recover from stochastic events from connected populations.” Even with a resiliency classified as “moderate” in three populations, we expect stable or decreasing populations that are not able to recover from stochastic events. The remaining two populations have few turtles able to complete life functions, a decreasing population, and inability to withstand or recover from stochastic events. All five of these populations are currently facing stressors and are susceptible to current and ongoing impacts.
Habitat loss from anthropogenic ground water withdrawals and long-term drought is occurring rangewide and is likely to continue and increase in the near term (Factors A and E). This reduction in water restricts the limited available habitat and decreases the resiliency of Sonoyta mud turtle populations within those habitats. We find that ongoing cyclical drought is likely to continue and be exacerbated by climate change, further decreasing water availability and increasing evapotranspiration losses (Factors A and E). This threat is ongoing, rangewide, and expected to increase in the future. Predation by nonnative aquatic species has occurred at two sites in Mexico, although there is uncertainty with regard to the population effects (Factor C). Predation by nonnative aquatic species reduces recruitment and population size of populations of Sonora mud turtle, and it is likely to continue to affect Sonoyta mud turtle populations in the future. The Quitovac population's current habitat was just recently completely dredged (Factor A), and the current status of Sonoyta mud turtles at that location is unknown. Partial dredging in the near term is likely to occur based on past dredging activity. It is reasonably likely that a catastrophic event could occur imminently at one or more of the population sites, and current population resiliency and redundancy are inadequate to maintain population viability.
The implementation of the conservation measures by NPS and the Quitobaquito Rio Sonoyta Working Group has resulted in maintaining the only Sonoyta mud turtle population in the United States and reduces the risk of loss of at least one population in Mexico. However, the conservation measures do not alleviate the threats that are influencing the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the Sonoyta mud turtle across its range (as described above).
The Act defines a “species” as including 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.” The Act defines an “endangered species” as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a “threatened species” as
These factors, acting in combination, reduce the overall viability of the subspecies. Each of the five remaining populations are exposed to threats that may eliminate them individually at any time. The risk of extinction for this subspecies is currently high because the five remaining populations are small, isolated, and have limited (if any) potential for recolonization. Each population's isolation from other populations means that once a population is extirpated, it is likely to remain extirpated. The estimated current conditions of the known Sonoyta mud turtle populations as described in the SSA Report lead us to find that the condition and distribution of populations do not provide sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation for this subspecies at this time; therefore, we find that the subspecies meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the Sonoyta mud turtle as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
We find that a threatened status is not appropriate for the Sonoyta mud turtle because the danger of extinction for this subspecies exists now. The current restricted range and ubiquitous and imminent threats occur rangewide. Consequently, we find the Sonoyta mud turtle to be in danger of extinction now throughout its range.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The phrase “significant portion of its range” is not defined by the Act, and a district court has held that aspects of the Service's Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37577 (July 1, 2014)) (SPR Policy) were not valid.
Although the court's order in that case has not yet gone into effect, if the court denies the pending motion for reconsideration, the SPR Policy would become vacated. Therefore, we have examined the plain language of the Act and court decisions addressing the Service's application of the SPR phrase in various listing decisions, and for purposes of this rulemaking we are applying the interpretation set out below for the phrase “significant portion of its range” and its context in determining whether or not a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. Because the interpretation we are applying is consistent with the SPR Policy, we summarize herein the bases for our interpretation, and also refer the public to the SPR Policy itself for a more-detailed explanation of our reasons for interpreting the phrase in this way.
An important factor that influences the question of whether an SPR analysis is necessary here is what the consequence would be if the Service were to find that the Sonoyta mud turtle is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. Two district court decisions have evaluated whether the outcomes of the Service's SPR determinations were reasonable. As described in the SPR Policy, both courts found that, once the Service determines that a “species”—which can include a species, subspecies, or DPS under ESA Section 3(16)—meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” the species must be listed in its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently to all members of that species (subject to modification of protections through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). See
Consistent with the district court case law, we interpret that the consequence of finding that the Sonoyta mud turtle is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range would be that the entire species would be listed as an endangered species or threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections would be applied to all individuals of the species wherever found. Thus, the “throughout all” phrase and the SPR phrase provide two independent bases for listing. We note that in the Act Congress placed the “all” language before the SPR phrase in the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” This suggests that Congress intended that an analysis based on consideration of the entire range should receive primary focus. Thus, the first step we undertook, above, in our assessment of the status of the species was to determine its status throughout all of its range. Having determined that the species is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, we now examine whether it is necessary to determine its status throughout a significant portion of its range.
We conclude that in this situation we do not need to conduct an SPR analysis. This conclusion is consistent with the Act because the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are adding Sonoyta mud turtle to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for Sonoyta mud turtle because of the immediacy of threats facing the species with only five known populations, at least one of which is declining in abundance.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of “critical habitat.”
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for this subspecies, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, we next determine whether such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In our proposed listing rule, we determined that there are habitat-based threats to the Sonoyta mud turtle identified under Factor A. Therefore, we find that the designation of critical habitat would be beneficial to Sonoyta mud turtle through the provisions of section 7 of the Act. Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the subspecies and would be beneficial, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. A careful assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation is still ongoing, and we are in the process of working with Customs and Border Protection and the National Park Service in acquiring the necessary information needed to perform that assessment. The information sufficient to perform a required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking. Accordingly, we find that critical habitat for this subspecies, in accordance with section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, to be not determinable at this time. When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (
Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Sonoyta mud turtle. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Sonoyta mud turtle. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the subspecies' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by NPS (Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are set forth at sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the Sonoyta mud turtle.
(2) Destruction/alteration of Sonoyta mud turtle habitat by discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond construction, stream channelization or diversion, removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation; or diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of the wetland (
(3) Direct or indirect destruction of riparian habitat.
(4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey upon the Sonoyta mud turtle, such as the introduction of nonnative fish and crayfish species.
(5) Release of biological control agents that attack any life stage of this subspecies.
(6) Discharge of chemicals or fill material into any waters in which the Sonoyta mud turtle is known to occur.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Based on cultural claims maps and reservation boundaries we have on file, the distribution of the Sonoyta mud turtle overlaps areas that may be of interest to the following tribes: Tohono O'odham Nation, Quechan Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, and Cocopah Indian Tribe. On November 20, 2015, we notified these tribes via letter of our intent to conduct a status assessment for the purpose of determining whether the subspecies warrants protection under the Act. In our letter, we offered to meet with the tribe to discuss the process, potential impacts to the tribes, and how tribal information may be used in our assessment. In addition, we requested any information they have regarding the subspecies. On August 17, 2016, we invited comments from the five tribes, and on September 19, 2016, we submitted notification to tribal leaders of the proposed listing publication. To date, we have not received a response from these any of these tribes. Upon publication of this final rule, we will send notification letters to these tribes and again extend an invitation to meet and discuss.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available in the SSA Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017. Species status assessment report for the Sonoyta mud turtle (
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
In this final rule, NMFS removes a regulatory exemption that allowed certain large U.S. longline vessels to fish in portions of the American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area (LVPA). The intent is to comply with a U.S. District Court Final Judgment and Order that vacated and set aside that rule.
Effective September 20, 2017.
Bob Harman, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5170.
NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) manage pelagic fisheries in the U.S. Pacific Islands under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, formerly the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FMP). In 2002, in response to a recommendation from the Council, NMFS implemented a measure under the FMP that prohibited certain vessels from fishing for Pacific pelagic management unit species in Federal waters from 3 nm to approximately 30-50 nm around the islands of American Samoa (the Large Vessel Prohibited Area, LVPA). The area prohibition applied to vessels more than 50 ft in length overall that had not landed pelagic management unit species in American Samoa under a Federal longline general permit prior to November 13, 1997. The LVPA was intended to prevent the potential for gear conflicts and catch competition between large and small vessels. At the time, the Council and NMFS felt that such conflicts and competition could have led to reduced opportunities for sustained participation by residents of American Samoa in the small-scale pelagic fishery. You may read more about the establishment of the LVPA in the 2001 proposed rule (66 FR 39475, July 31, 2001) and 2002 final rule (67 FR 4369, January 30, 2002).
Since 2002, however, the American Samoa longline fishery has been experiencing declining catch rates of albacore, lower fish prices, and increased fuel and operating costs. In the period 2001-2009, longline incomes had decreased by 96 percent, with average revenues only half of what was necessary for profitable operations. Concerned that the LVPA might be unnecessarily reducing the efficiency of the larger American Samoa longline vessels by displacing the fleet from a part of their historical fishing grounds, in early 2014 the Council began exploring ways to assist the longline fishery, while ensuring conservation of affected stocks and minimizing impacts to other fisheries. To address current fishery conditions, the Council recommended in 2015 that NMFS provide a limited exemption from the LVPA based on vessel size, and allow federally permitted U.S. longline vessels 50 ft and longer to fish in portions of the LVPA.
Accordingly, in 2016, NMFS published a final rule that allowed large federally permitted U.S. longline vessels to fish in specific areas of the LVPA. That action allowed large U.S. vessels that hold a Federal American Samoa longline limited entry permit to fish within the LVPA to within about 12-17 nm from shore around Swains Island, Tutuila, and the Manua Islands. Large vessels continued to be restricted from fishing within the remaining portions of the LVPA. The intent of the rule was to improve the viability of the American Samoa longline fishery and achieve optimum yield, while preventing overfishing in accordance with National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). You may read more about the large vessel exemptions to the LVPA in the 2015 proposed rule (80 FR 51527, August 25, 2015) and 2016 final rule (81 FR 5619, February 3, 2016).
In July 2016, the Territory of American Samoa sued NMFS and the Council in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (
On March 20, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii held that, because NMFS did not consider whether the 2016 rule was consistent with the Deeds of Cession, the final rule was invalid. The Court issued an Order for NMFS to vacate and set aside the LVPA exemption rule. On August 10, 2017, the U.S. District Court denied Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of this Judgment. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, this final rule removes the LVPA exemptions based on vessel size found at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 665.818, paragraph (b). All other provisions applicable to the American Samoa longline fishery remain unchanged.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Court's Final Judgment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive notice and public comment on this action because it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action is limited in scope and ensures that the regulatory text provides accurate information to the regulated public that is consistent with a Federal Court Order. NMFS does not have discretion to take other action, as there is no alternative to complying with the requirements of the Court Order.
Furthermore, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), finding that such delay would be contrary to the public interest because the measures contained in this rule are necessary to ensure that the fishery is conducted in compliance with a Federal Court Order. On March 27, 2017, NMFS notified longline permit holders of the Court Order, that the exemption available to large longline vessels no longer applies, and that they may not fish within the boundaries of the LVPA.
Because this rulemaking is required by Court Order, and prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603-605, do not apply to this rule. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.
In addition, because the changes required by the Court Order that are identified in this rule are non-
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 665 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Joint notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the Agencies) propose to amend their regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to update the existing definitions of “home mortgage loan” and “consumer loan,” related cross references, and the public file content requirements to conform recent revisions made by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) to Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), and to remove obsolete references to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).
Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2017.
Comments should be directed to:
• Click on the “Help” tab on the
•
•
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:
•
• Click on the “Help” tab on the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Board, the FDIC, and the OCC implement the CRA (12 U.S.C. 2901
The Agencies also publish the Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment (Questions and Answers)
The Agencies jointly propose to amend their regulations implementing the CRA (12 U.S.C. 2901
The CRA regulations specify the type of lending and other activities that the Agencies evaluate to assess a financial institution's CRA performance. In 1995, the Agencies substantively amended their CRA regulations to clarify the methods that examiners use to assess financial institutions' CRA performance (1995 CRA Rule).
On February 15, 2002, the Board made substantial revisions to its Regulation C (2002 HMDA Rule), including, among other things, changing the scope of loans reported under Regulation C to include all refinancings,
On July 21, 2011, rulemaking authority for HMDA transferred from the Board to the Bureau pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
The 2015 HMDA Rule retains the traditional purpose-based reporting approach for all commercial-purpose transactions. Thus, if a dwelling-secured, commercial loan has the purpose of home purchase, home improvement, or refinancing, the loan will be subject to Regulation C.
Effective January 1, 2018, Regulation C will require covered financial institutions to report applications for, and originations and purchases of, “covered loans” that are secured by a dwelling. A “covered loan” is defined in 12 CFR 1003.2(e) to mean a closed-end mortgage loan, as defined in § 1003.2(d), or an open-end line of credit, as defined in § 1003.2(o), that is not an excluded transaction under 12 CFR 1003.3(c).
1. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit originated or purchased by a financial institution acting in a fiduciary capacity;
2. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit secured by a lien on unimproved land;
3. Temporary financing;
4. The purchase of an interest in a pool of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit;
5. The purchase solely of the right to service closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit;
6. The purchase of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit as part of a merger or acquisition, or as part of the acquisition of all of the assets and liabilities of a branch office as defined in 12 CFR 1003.2(c);
7. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit, or an application of a closed-end mortgage
8. The purchase of a partial interest in a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit;
9. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit used primarily for agricultural purposes;
10. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit that is or will be made primarily for a business or commercial purpose, unless the closed-end mortgage loan or open-end equity line of credit is a home improvement loan under § 1003.2(i), a home purchase under § 1003.2(j), or a refinancing under § 1003.2(p);
11. A closed-end mortgage loan, if the financial institution originated fewer than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded closed-end mortgage loan as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for closed-end mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded closed-end mortgage loan; or
12. An open-end equity line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 500 open-end equity lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded open-end line of credit as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for open-end lines of credit that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded open-end line of credit (as noted above, the increased threshold from 100 to 500 open-end lines of credit is temporary and applies only to calendar years 2018 and 2019; absent action from the Bureau, the threshold for reporting open-end lines of credit reverts to 100 effective January 1, 2020); or
13. A transaction that provided or, in the case of an application, proposed to provide new funds to the applicant or borrower in advance of being consolidated in a New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreement classified as a supplemental mortgage under New York Tax Law section 255; the transaction is excluded only if final action on the consolidation was taken in the same calendar year as final action on the new funds transaction.
As a result of the proposed revisions to the “home mortgage loan” definition, the manner in which some loan transactions are considered under CRA will be affected. Effective January 1, 2018, home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling, which are currently required to be reported under Regulation C, will no longer be reportable transactions under the 2015 HMDA Rule. Therefore, also effective January 1, 2018, for purposes of CRA, home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling may be considered at the option of the financial institution. A financial institution that opts to have its home improvement loans considered would need to collect and maintain data on these loans in machine readable form under the category of “other secured consumer loan” or “other unsecured consumer loan,” as appropriate.
Home equity lines of credit secured by a dwelling, which are currently reported at the option of the financial institution under Regulation C, will be covered loans under the 2015 HMDA Rule. Effective January 1, 2018, financial institutions that meet the reporting requirements under the 2015 HMDA Rule will be required to collect, maintain, and report data on home equity lines of credit secured by a dwelling. For purposes of CRA consideration, in the case of financial institutions that report closed-end mortgage loans and/or home equity lines of credit under the 2015 HMDA Rule, those loans would be considered as home mortgage loans under the proposed amended definition of “home mortgage loan.” The effect of the proposed change will vary depending upon the amount and characteristics of the financial institution's mortgage loan portfolio. As with all aspects of an institution's CRA performance evaluation, the performance context of the institution will affect how the Agencies will consider home equity lines of credit. Performance context includes a broad range of economic, demographic, and financial institution and community-specific information that the Agencies use to understand the circumstances in which a financial institution's record of performance should be evaluated. Performance context information is used by the Agencies to support a financial institution's level of performance and CRA performance rating. For financial institutions that would not be required to report these transactions under Regulation C, examiners may review the relevant files and consider these loans for CRA performance on a sampling basis under the home mortgage loan category.
The Agencies request comment on their proposal to amend the definition of “home mortgage loan,” including how the amended definition may impact a financial institution's CRA performance.
The CRA regulations currently define “consumer loan” as a loan to one or more individuals for household, family, or other personal expenditures and that is
The CRA regulations currently provide that financial institutions shall maintain a public file of certain information and specify, among other things, the information that should be maintained and made available to the public upon request under 12 CFR__.43(a)-(d). Currently, a financial institution that is required to report HMDA data under Regulation C must include a copy of the HMDA disclosure statement that is provided to each financial institution by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council in the institution's CRA public file for each of the prior two calendar years per 12 CFR __.43(b)(2). However, pursuant to changes to Regulation C under the 2015 HMDA Rule, which becomes effective January 1, 2018, financial institutions will no longer be required to provide this HMDA disclosure statement directly to the public. Instead, pursuant to Regulation C, a financial institution will only be required to provide a notice that clearly conveys to the public that they can obtain a copy of the financial institution's disclosure statement on the Bureau's Web site under 12 CFR 1003.5(b). As a result, the proposed rule would amend the CRA public file content requirements under 12 CFR__.43(b)(2) for consistency and to reduce burden. Specifically, under the proposal, institutions that are required to report HMDA data would need to only maintain the notice required under Regulation C in their CRA public file, rather than a copy of the HMDA disclosure statement. The Agencies request comment on their proposal to amend the CRA public file content requirements.
As explained in more detail under the Regulatory Analysis section of this proposal, the Agencies expect the proposed changes to the CRA definitions and to the content of the public file, to reflect revisions made to the Bureau's Regulation C, to generally have little economic effect and believe the proposed changes would not create additional regulatory burden on financial institutions.
As indicated above, the proposed rule would remove the term “home equity loan” currently included under 12 CFR __.12(j)(3) from the categories of consumer loans listed in 12 CFR __.12(j). Based on the new proposed definition of “consumer loan,” any cross-references to home equity loans as a category of “consumer loans” in the CRA regulations would be invalid. As a result, the proposed rule would amend 12 CFR __.22, Lending Test, and 12 CFR _.42, Data Collection, Reporting, and Disclosure, to remove the term “home equity” each time it appears as a category of consumer loans.
The CRA regulations under 12 CFR __.12(h) currently define “community development loan” as a loan that,
(1) Has as its primary purpose, community development; and
(2) Except in the case of a wholesale or limited purpose bank:
(i) Has not been reported or collected by the bank or an affiliate for consideration in the bank's assessment as a home mortgage, small business, small farm, or consumer loan, unless it is a multifamily dwelling loan (as described in appendix A to part 1003 of this title); and
(ii) Benefits the bank's assessment area(s) or a broader statewide or regional area that includes the bank's assessment area(s).
Effective January 1, 2019, the 2015 HMDA Rule removes appendix A from Regulation C. The instructions for completion of the HMDA LAR currently found in part 1 of that appendix A will not apply to data collected pursuant to the amendments to Regulation C that are effective January 1, 2018. The substantive requirements found in existing appendix A will be moved to the text and commentary of Regulation C and going forward, any reference to appendix A will become obsolete. As a result, the Agencies believe that the reference to appendix A of Regulation C in the “community development loan” definition in the CRA regulations needs to be removed. Moreover, effective January 1, 2018, the term “multifamily dwelling” will be specifically defined under 12 CFR 1003.2(n). Accordingly, the proposed rule would remove the reference to appendix A in the definition of “community development loan” and replace it with a reference to the definition of “multifamily dwelling” under new 12 CFR 1003.2(n).
The NSP was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act
The Agencies request comment on their proposal to make the technical amendments described above.
The Agencies note that they plan to make conforming changes to the relevant Interagency CRA Q&As if the proposed changes to the CRA regulations become final.
The proposed rule would have an effective date of January 1, 2018, to conform to the effective date of the revisions resulting from the Bureau's Regulation C. The Agencies request comment on the proposed effective date.
The OCC currently supervises approximately 956 small entities.
There are 820 Board-supervised state member banks, and 566 are identified as small entities according to the RFA.
The proposed rule changes the CRA public file notification requirements for covered financial institutions. Financial institutions that are required to report HMDA data can maintain the notice required under Regulation C in their CRA public file of their branch office, rather than the HMDA Disclosure Statement. By allowing covered financial institutions to utilize the same disclosure for both purposes, the proposed rule will reduce compliance burden. As previously stated, there are 566 Board-supervised entities that are identified as small entities by the terms of the RFA. Of those, 304 were HMDA filers in 2016.
The Board expects the proposed changes to definitions within the CRA performance standards to generally have little economic effect for small entities, however the amendments could pose some effects for individual entities depending upon the amount and characteristics of their loan portfolio. As noted previously, in some cases the revised scope of the CRA definitions is broader, and in other cases, it is more limited. These changes could affect supervisory assessment of CRA performance for small entities. However, it is unlikely that small financial institutions will be significantly affected given that HMDA reporting will be limited to financial institutions that originate more than 25 home mortgage loans or 100 home equity lines of credit each year.
Finally, Board-supervised small entities will likely benefit from the harmonization of definitions for CRA performance standards with HMDA data reporting requirements by avoiding unnecessary confusion and costs. Inconsistencies between CRA examination metrics and the HMDA data, which is used to assess performance, could lead to misleading results causing small entities to change future lending behavior.
1.
2.
The Board invites comment on the effect of the proposed rule on small entities.
3.
4.
5.
There are 3,787 FDIC-supervised financial institutions, and 3,080 are identified as small entities according to the RFA.
The proposed rule changes the CRA public file notification requirements for covered financial institutions. Financial institutions required to report HMDA data can maintain the notice required under Regulation C in the CRA public file of their branch office, rather than the HMDA Disclosure Statement. By allowing covered financial institutions to utilize the same disclosure for both purposes, the proposed rule would reduce regulatory costs. As previously stated, there are 3,080 FDIC-supervised entities that are identified as small entities by the terms of the RFA. Of those, 1,856 were HMDA filers in 2015.
The FDIC expects the proposed changes to definitions within the CRA performance standards to generally have little economic effect for small entities, however the amendments could pose some effects for individual entities depending upon the amount and characteristics of their loan portfolio. As noted previously, in some cases the revised scope of the CRA definitions is broader, and in other cases, it is more limited. These changes could affect supervisory assessment of CRA performance for small entities. However, it is unlikely that small financial institutions would be significantly affected given that HMDA reporting will be limited to financial institutions that originate more than 25 home mortgage loans or 100 home equity lines of credit each year.
Finally, FDIC-supervised small entities would likely benefit from the harmonization of definitions for CRA performance standards with HMDA data reporting requirements by avoiding unnecessary confusion and costs. Inconsistencies between CRA examination metrics and the HMDA data which is used to assess performance could lead to misleading results causing small entities to change future lending behavior.
Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the
Under this proposal, effective January 1, 2018, financial institutions required to collect data under the CRA would also be required to collect data for open-end lines of credit in MSA and non-MSA areas where they have no branch or home office. The Agencies estimate that this proposed change would not result in an increase in burden under the currently approved CRA information collections because the burden associated with the above-described requirement is accounted for under the HMDA information collections.
The agencies have determined that the proposed revised definition of “home mortgage loan” to include home equity lines of credit and to exclude home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling (
(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to the addresses listed in the
In 1995, the federal banking agencies issued substantially identical regulations under CRA to reduce unnecessary compliance burden, promote consistency in CRA assessments, and encourage improved performance.
Under the CRA regulations, large banks are defined as those with assets of $1.226 billion or more for the past two consecutive year-ends; all other banks are considered small or intermediate.
Other than the information collections pursuant to the CRA, the Agencies have no information collection that supplies data regarding the community reinvestment activities.
The OCC analyzed the proposed rule under the factors set forth in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposed rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation). The OCC has determined that this proposed rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Agencies invite comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand.
For example:
• Have the Agencies organized the material to inform your needs? If not, how could the Agencies present the proposed rule more clearly?
• Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? If not, how could the proposal be more clearly stated?
• Does the proposed regulation contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the proposed regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?
• Is this section format adequate? If not, which of the sections should be changed and how?
• What other changes can the agencies incorporate to make the proposed regulation easier to understand?
Community development, Credit, Investments, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
12 U.S.C. 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 36, 93a, 161, 215, 215a, 481, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), 1835a, 2901 through 2908, and 3101 through 3111.
(b) * * *
(2)
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), 2901 through 2908, and 5412(b)(2)(B).
(b) * * *
(2)
For the reasons discussed in the
12 U.S.C. 321, 325, 1828(c), 1842, 1843, 1844, and 2901
(b) * * *
(2)
For the reasons discussed in the
12 U.S.C. 1814-1817, 1819-1820, 1828, 1831u and 2901-2908, 3103-3104, and 3108(a).
(b) * * *
(2)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed amendments to the regulations under sections 6051 and 6052 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). To aid employers' efforts to protect employees from identity theft, these proposed regulations would amend existing regulations to permit employers to voluntarily truncate employees' social security numbers (SSNs) on copies of Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, that are furnished to employees so that the truncated SSNs appear in the form of IRS truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs). These proposed regulations also would amend the regulations under section 6109 to clarify the application of the truncation rules to Forms W-2 and to add an example illustrating the application of these rules. Additionally, these proposed amendments would delete obsolete provisions and update cross references in the regulations under sections 6051 and 6052. These proposed regulations affect employers who are required to furnish Forms W-2 and employees who receive Forms W-2.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 18, 2017.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-105004-16), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-105004-16), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning these proposed regulations, Eliezer Mishory, (202) 317-6844; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1), the Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Tax at Source Regulations (26 CFR part 31), and the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) regarding statements that are required to be furnished to employees by employers or other persons under sections 6051 and 6052 of the Code. Section 6051(a) generally requires that an employer provide to each employee on or before January 31st of the succeeding year a written statement that shows the employee's total amount of wages and the total amount deducted and withheld as tax from those wages, along with other information, for each calendar year. Employers must use Form W-2 (or a substitute statement that complies with applicable revenue procedures relating to such statements) to provide the information required by section 6051(a) to employees. See § 31.6051-1(a)(1)(i); Rev. Proc. 2016-54, 2016-45 I.R.B. 685, also published as Publication 1141, “General Rules and Specifications for Substitute Forms W-2 and W-3,” or any successor guidance. Section 6051(d) provides that, when required to do so by regulations, employers must file with the Secretary duplicates of the forms required to be furnished to employees under section 6051. Section 31.6051-2(a) generally requires employers to file Social Security Administration copies of Forms W-2 with the Social Security Administration. A person making a payment of third-party sick pay to an employee of another employer (payee) is required under section 6051(f)(1) to furnish a written statement to the employer for whom services are normally rendered containing certain information, including the payee's SSN. Under certain conditions, the employer for whom services are normally rendered is required under section 6051(f)(2) to furnish a Form W-2 to the payee. This situation may arise, for example, when an insurance company is making payments to an employee of another employer because the employee is temporarily absent from work due to injury, sickness or disability, and the insurance company has satisfied the necessary requirements under § 32.1(e) of the Temporary Employment Tax Regulations under the Act of December 29, 1981 (Pub. L. 97-123) to transfer the obligation to do Form W-2 reporting to the employer. Employers also must use Form W-2 to file and furnish information regarding payment of wages in the form of group-term life insurance under section 6052.
Section 6109(a) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations with respect to the inclusion in returns, statements, or other documents of an identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of a person. On July 15, 2014, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
Section 301.6109-4(b) generally provides that a TTIN may be used to identify any person on any statement or other document that the internal revenue laws require to be furnished to another person. Under § 301.6109-4(a), a TTIN is an individual's SSN, IRS individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), IRS adoption taxpayer identification number (ATIN), or IRS employer identification number (EIN) in which the first five digits of the nine-digit number are replaced with Xs or asterisks. For example, a TTIN replacing an SSN appears in the form XXX-XX-1234 or ***-**-1234. Section 301.6109-4(b)(2)(ii) prohibits using TTINs if, among other things, a statute, regulation, other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, form, or instructions specifically requires the use of an SSN. Additionally, § 301.6109-4(b)(2)(iii) prohibits the use of TTINs on any return, statement, or other document that is required to be filed with or furnished to the IRS.
Prior to being amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015, Public Law 114-113, div. Q, title IV, 129 Stat. 2242, section 6051(a)(2) specifically required employers to include their employees' SSNs on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to employees. In addition, current regulations under § 31.6051-1, as well as forms and instructions, require employers to include their employees' SSNs on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to employees. Section 409 of the PATH Act amended section 6051(a)(2) by striking “his social security account number” from the list of information required on Form W-2 and inserting “an identifying number for the employee” instead. This statutory amendment is effective for statements issued after December 18, 2015, the date that the PATH Act was signed into law. Because an SSN is no longer required by section 6051, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose amending the regulations to permit employers to truncate employees' SSNs to appear in the form of TTINs on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to employees. If the proposed regulations are finalized without change, the IRS intends to incorporate the revised regulations into forms and instructions, permitting employers to use a TTIN on the employee copy of the Form W-2. See § 301.6109-4(b)(2)(i) and (ii).
These proposed regulations amend § 31.6051-1 to permit employers to truncate employees' SSNs to appear in the form of a TTIN on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to employees under section 6051. Consistent with the rule in § 301.6109-4(b)(2)(iii), prohibiting the use of TTINs on any return, statement, or other document that is required to be filed with or furnished to the IRS, these proposed regulations amend § 31.6051-2 to clarify that employers may not truncate an employee's SSN to appear in the form of a TTIN on a copy of a Form W-2 that is filed with the Social Security Administration. This result is appropriate because both the IRS and the SSA need to utilize Forms W-2 to properly identify individuals to be able to carry out their respective duties.
Consistent with the rule in § 301.6109-4(b)(2)(ii) that prohibits using TTINs if, among other things, a statute specifically requires the use of an SSN, the proposed regulations also amend § 31.6051-3 to clarify that a payee's SSN may not be truncated to appear in the form of a TTIN on a statement furnished to the employer of the payee who received sick pay from a third party because section 6051(f)(1)(A)(i) specifically requires such a statement to contain the employee's SSN. Nonetheless, these proposed regulations permit employers to truncate payees' SSNs to appear in the form of TTINs on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished under section 6051(f)(2) to payees that report such third-party sick pay, in accordance with the general rule governing the reporting of wages to employees on Forms W-2 under section 6051(a), because section 6051(f)(2) does not specifically require the use of an SSN.
Further, these proposed regulations amend § 1.6052-2 to permit employers to truncate employees' SSNs to appear in the form of TTINs on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to employees under section 6052(b) regarding payment of wages in the form of group-term life insurance.
These proposed regulations amend § 301.6109-4 to clarify that truncation is not allowed on any return, statement, or other document that is required to be filed with or furnished to the Social Security Administration under the internal revenue laws. These proposed regulations also clarify the rule prohibiting truncation if a statute, regulation, other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, form, or instructions, specifically requires use of a SSN, ITIN, ATIN, or EIN. The proposed regulations provide that truncation is allowed if a statute or IRS guidance (
In addition to the amendments relating to the truncation of employees' SSNs to appear in the form of TTINs in specific circumstances, these proposed regulations eliminate obsolete provisions and update cross references in the regulations under sections 6051 and 6052, as explained below.
First, these proposed regulations amend § 31.6051-1 to remove obsolete provisions regarding compensation, as defined in the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, paid during 1968, 1969, 1970, and 1971 and reported on the now obsolete Form W-2 (RR); the special rule for statements with respect to the refundable earned income credit for Form W-2 for 1987 and 1988; and references to the annual contribution base (repealed in 1993) for wages subject to the Hospital Insurance tax (commonly known as Medicare tax).
Second, these proposed regulations amend § 31.6051-1 to remove obsolete cross references, including a cross reference to former § 301.6676-1 relating to the penalty for failure to report an identification number or an account number, and a cross reference to section 6723 (prior to its amendment in 1989) that was relevant for Forms W-2 that were due from the beginning of 1987 through the end of 1989.
Third, these proposed regulations amend § 31.6051-2 to update now inaccurate cross references resulting from statutory and regulatory changes regarding penalties for failures to file, and to remove a cross reference to section 6723 (prior to its amendment in 1989) that was relevant for Forms W-2 that were due from the beginning of 1987 through the end of 1989. These proposed regulations also change the title of § 31.6051-2 from “Information returns on Form W-3 and Internal Revenue Service copies of Forms W-2” to “Information returns on Form W-3 and Social Security Administration copies of Forms W-2,” to conform with the text of the regulation that refers to the Social Security Administration copies of Form W-2. In addition, these proposed regulations remove obsolete references in § 31.6051-2 to the requirements to submit information on magnetic tape and insert a reference to the requirements to submit information on magnetic media.
Fourth, these proposed regulations amend § 31.6051-3 to remove the obsolete transition rule for third-party sick pay that was paid to a payee after December 31, 1980, and before May 1, 1981.
Fifth, these proposed regulations amend § 1.6052-2 to remove an obsolete rule that allowed employers to use a statement other than a Form W-2 to satisfy the requirement to furnish a statement to an employee with respect to wages paid in the form of group-term life insurance. This rule was relevant for years prior to 1973, before § 1.6052-1 was amended to require employers to report wages in the form of group-term life insurance on Form W-2. At the same time, to conform to this new requirement, § 1.6052-2 was amended to provide that the requirement to furnish a statement to an employee with respect to wages paid in the form of group-term life insurance may be satisfied by furnishing to the employee the employee's copy of Form W-2 that was filed pursuant to § 1.6052-1. Because the transition period to require employers to file Form W-2 has long since passed and because the Treasury Department and the IRS understand that copies of Forms W-2 are used to satisfy the requirement to furnish statements to employees under § 1.6052-2, these proposed regulations require employers to furnish to employees the employees' copies of Forms W-2 that were filed pursuant to § 1.6052-1, and these proposed regulations make conforming changes throughout that section.
Finally, these proposed regulations update the now inaccurate cross reference resulting from statutory changes regarding penalties for failures to furnish statements under section 6052 and remove the deemed compliance rule, which applied only to years before 1972.
These proposed regulations will be effective on the date of the publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the
IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings notices, and other guidance 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 Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Because these proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
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 the preamble under the
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Eliezer Mishory of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad Retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security, Unemployment compensation.
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 31 and 301 are proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(d)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 31.6051-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6051.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The name, address, and social security number of the employee, which may be truncated to appear in the form of an IRS truncated taxpayer identification number (TTIN) on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to the employee (for provisions relating to the use of TTINs, see § 301.6109-4 of this
(f)
(2)
(i) The total amount of compensation with respect to which the tax imposed by section 3101(b) was deducted;
(ii) The total amount of employee tax under section 3201 deducted and withheld (increased by any adjustment in the calendar year for overcollection, or decreased by any adjustment in such year for undercollection, of such tax during any prior year); and
(iii) The proportion thereof (expressed either as a dollar amount, or a percentage of the total amount of compensation as defined in section 3231(e), or as a percentage of the total amount of employee tax under section 3201) withheld as tax under section 3201 for financing the cost of hospital insurance benefits.
(h) * * *
(2)
(i) In the case of an employee who is required to be furnished a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, for the calendar year, within one week of (before or after) the date that the employee is furnished a timely Form W-2 for the calendar year (or, if a Form W-2 is not so furnished, on or before the date by which it is required to be furnished); and
(ii) In the case of an employee who is not required to be furnished a Form W-2 for the calendar year, on or before February 7 of the year succeeding the calendar year.
(i)
(k)
(a)
(c)
(d)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The name and, if there is withholding from sick pay under section 3402(o) and the regulations thereunder, the social security account number of the payee (the payee's social security number may not be truncated to appear in the form of an IRS truncated taxpayer identification number (TTIN)),
(b) * * *
(1) All of the information required to be furnished under paragraph (a) of this section, but the employer may truncate the payee's social security number to appear in the form of an IRS truncated taxpayer identification number (TTIN) on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to the payee (for provisions relating to the use of TTINs, see § 301.6109-4 of this chapter (Procedure and Administration Regulations)),
(e) * * *
(3) The provisions of section 6109 (relating to identifying numbers) and the regulations thereunder shall be applicable to Form W-2 and to any payee of sick pay to whom a statement on Form W-2 is required by this section to be furnished. The employer must include the social security number of the payee on all copies of Forms W-2. The employer may truncate the payee's social security number to appear in the form of an IRS truncated taxpayer identification number (TTIN) on copies of Forms W-2 that are furnished to the payee. For provisions relating to the use of truncated taxpayer identification numbers (TTINs), see § 301.6109-4 of this chapter (Procedure and Administration Regulations).
(f)
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A TTIN may not be used on a statement or document if a statute, regulation, other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, form, or instructions, specifically requires use of a SSN, ITIN, ATIN, or EIN and does not specifically state that the taxpayer identifying number may be truncated. For example, a TTIN may not be used on a Form W-8ECI or Form W-8IMY because the forms and/or form instructions specifically prescribe use of an SSN, EIN, or ITIN for the U.S. taxpayer identification number.
(iii) A TTIN may not be used on any return, statement, or other document that is required to be filed with or furnished to the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration in the case of forms required to be filed with the Social Security Administration under the internal revenue laws.
(3)
Pursuant to section 6051(d) and § 31.6051-2(a) of this chapter, Employer files the Social Security Administration copy of Employee's Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, with the Social Security Administration. Employer may not truncate any identifying number on the Social Security Administration copy. Pursuant to section 6051(a) and § 31.6051-1(a)(1)(i) of this chapter, Employer furnishes copies of Form W-2 to Employee. There are no applicable statutes, regulations, other published guidance, forms, or instructions that prohibit use of a TTIN on Form W-2, and § 31.6051-1(a)(1)(i) specifically permits truncating employees' SSNs. Accordingly, Employer may truncate Employee's SSN to appear in the form of a TTIN on copies of Form W-2 furnished to Employee. Employer may not truncate its own EIN on copies of Form W-2 furnished to Employee.
On April 5, year 1, Donor contributes a used car with a blue book value of $1100 to Charitable Organization. On April 20, year 1, Charitable Organization sends Donor copies B and C of the Form 1098-C as a contemporaneous written acknowledgement of the $1100 contribution as required by section 170(f)(12). In late-February, year 2, Charitable Organization prepares and files copy A of Form 1098-C with the IRS, reporting Donor's donation of a qualified vehicle in year 1. Charitable Organization may truncate Donor's SSN to appear in the form of a TTIN in the Donor's Identification Number box on copies B and C of the Form 1098-C because copies B and C of the Form 1098-C are documents required by the Internal Revenue Code and regulations to be furnished to another person; there are no applicable statutes, regulations, other published guidance, forms or instructions that prohibit the use of a TTIN on those copies; and there are no applicable statutes, regulations, other published guidance, forms, or instructions that specifically require use of an SSN or other identifying number on those copies. Charitable Organization may not truncate its own EIN on copies B and C of the Form 1098-C because a person cannot truncate its own taxpayer identifying number on any statement or other document the person furnishes to another person. Charitable Organization may not truncate any identifying number on copy A of the Form 1098-C because copy A is required to be filed with the IRS.
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, and an amended SIP submission from the State of Iowa for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0208, to
Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 at (913) 551-7039, or by email at
This document proposes to take direct final action on Iowa's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Nebraska addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
Comments must be received by October 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0477, to
Mr. Gregory Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at
This document proposes to take action on the 2010 NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS seeks comments on this proposed rule issued under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act). The proposed rule
Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted in writing by October 5, 2017.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule and the regulatory impact review (RIR) prepared for the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0100, by either of the following methods:
•
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
•
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared under authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in the Classification section of the
Copies of the RIR and the programmatic environmental assessment (PEA) prepared for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes are available at
Emily Crigler, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5036.
The Convention is concerned with the conservation and management of fisheries for highly migratory species (HMS). The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of HMS in the WCPO. To accomplish this objective, the Convention established the Commission, which includes Members, Cooperating Non-members, and Participating Territories (collectively referred to here as “members”). The United States of America is a Member. American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are Participating Territories.
As a Contracting Party to the Convention and a Member of the Commission, the United States implements, as appropriate, conservation and management measures and other decisions adopted by the Commission. The WCPFC Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901
This proposed rule would implement specific provisions of the Commission's Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2016-01, “Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin, and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean,” for purse seine fisheries. CMM 2016-01 was adopted by the Commission at its thirteenth regular annual session, in December 2016, went into effect February 2017, and is applicable for 2017. The rule would also make some administrative changes to correct cross references in existing regulatory text.
CMM 2016-01 is the latest in a series of CMMs devoted to the conservation and management of tropical tuna stocks, particularly stocks of bigeye tuna (
The stated objective of CMM 2016-01 and several of its predecessor CMMs is to ensure that the stocks of bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna in the WCPO are, at a minimum, maintained at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors. The CMM includes specific objectives for each of the three stocks: for each, the fishing mortality rate is to be reduced to or maintained at levels no greater than the fishing mortality rate associated with maximum sustainable yield. The proposed rule would implement the provisions for purse seine vessels that have not yet been implemented for 2017. Several provisions of CMM 2016-01 that are the same as in CMM 2015-01 have already been implemented by NMFS. NMFS is also adjusting the longline bigeye tuna catch limit as required under CMM 2016-01 through a separate rulemaking (82 FR 36341; August 4, 2017).
The elements of the proposed rule are detailed below. The administrative changes that would be made to correct outdated references in existing regulatory text are described at the end of this preamble.
As in previous rules to implement similar Commission-mandated limits on purse seine fishing effort, this proposed rule would implement the applicable limits for the U.S. EEZ (paragraph 23 of
In this case, the United States is both a coastal state and a flag state and will satisfy its dual responsibilities by implementing a rule that combines the two areas for the purpose of limiting purse seine fishing effort. NMFS considered both the action alternative that would combine the two areas and another alternative that would not (see the PEA and the RIR for comparisons of the two alternatives). Because both alternatives would accomplish the objective of controlling fishing effort by the WPCFC-adopted amount (
The 2017 purse seine fishing effort limit for the ELAPS is formulated as in previous rules to establish limits for the ELAPS: The applicable limit for the U.S. EEZ portion of the ELAPS, 558 fishing days per year, is combined with the applicable limit for the high seas portion of the ELAPS, 1,270 fishing days per year, resulting in a combined limit of 1,828 fishing days in the ELAPS for calendar year 2017. This ELAPS limit for 2017, 1,828 fishing days, is identical to the limits established for 2014, 2015, and 2016.
The meaning of “fishing day” is defined at 50 CFR 300.211; that is, any day in which a fishing vessel of the United States equipped with purse seine gear searches for fish, deploys a FAD, services a FAD, or sets a purse seine, with the exception of setting a purse seine solely for the purpose of testing or cleaning the gear and resulting in no catch.
As established in existing regulations for purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS, NMFS will monitor the number of fishing days spent in the ELAPS using data submitted in logbooks and other available information. If and when NMFS determines that the limit of 1,828 fishing days is expected to be reached by a specific future date, it will publish a notice in the
On May 12, 2015, as NMFS was preparing to publish an interim rule to establish the ELAPS limit for 2015 (published May 21, 2015; 80 FR 29220), NMFS received a petition for rulemaking from Tri Marine Management Company, LLC. The company requested, first, that NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking to implement the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days on the high seas, and second, that NOAA issue a rule exempting from that high seas limit any U.S.-flagged purse seine vessel that, pursuant to contract or declaration of intent, delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa.
On July 17, 2015, NMFS issued a notice of receipt of, and a request for comments on, the petition (80 FR 42464).
On October 23, 2015, after considering the petition and public comments on the petition, NMFS announced that it had denied the petition (80 FR 64382). The petition, the public comments on the petition, and NMFS' decision on the petition are available via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, at
Although NMFS denied the petition, it acknowledged that some of the issues raised in the petition warrant further examination. Accordingly, on the same date, October 23, 2015, and in the same
The regulations at 50 CFR 300.217(b) and 300.218(a)(2)(v) contain outdated cross references that would be corrected by this proposed rule. In Section 300.217, paragraph (b)(1) would be revised to provide a cross reference to Section 300.336(b)(2), not Section 300.14(b), and in Section 300.218(a)(2)(v), the cross reference would be to Section 300.341(a) instead of to Sections 300.17(a) and (b). Sections 300.14(b) and Sections 300.17(a) and (b) no longer exist and have been replaced through a new regulatory action implementing provisions of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C. 5501
The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
NMFS determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the State of Hawaii. Determinations to Hawaii and each of the Territories were submitted on June 26, 2017, for review by the responsible state and territorial agencies under section 307 of the CZMA.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the
For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, 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 engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 114111) 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 has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of U.S. purse seine vessels used for fishing for HMS in the Convention Area.
There would be no disproportionate economic impacts between small and large entities operating vessels resulting from this rule. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts based on vessel size, gear, or home port.
The proposed rule would apply to owners and operators of U.S. commercial fishing vessels that use purse seine gear to fish for HMS in the Convention Area. The estimated number of affected fishing vessels is 40 purse seine vessels (based on the maximum number of purse seine vessels licenses available under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty excluding joint-venture licenses, of which there are five available under the SPTT, but no joint-venture licenses have ever been applied for or issued).
Based on (limited) financial information about the affected fishing fleets, and using individual vessels as proxies for individual businesses, NMFS believes that over half of the vessels in the purse seine fleet are small entities as defined by the RFA; that is, they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their fields of operation, and have annual receipts of no more than $11.0 million. Within the purse seine fleet, analysis of average revenue, by vessel, for the three years of 2014-2016 reveals that average fleet revenue was $10,201,962; 22 participating vessels qualified as small entities with their average of the most recent three years of vessel revenue for which data is available of less than $11 million.
The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule are described earlier in the preamble. The classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the types of professional skills necessary to fulfill the requirements are as follows:
The proposed action would establish fishing effort limits for purse seine vessels fishing in the U.S. EEZ and the high seas within the Convention Area between 20 N and 20 S: These requirements would not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements (within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act). Fulfillment of this requirement is not expected to require any professional skills that the vessel owners and operators do not already possess. The costs of complying with the proposed requirements are described below to the extent possible:
If and when the purse seine fishery is closed to fishing in the ELAPS as a result of the annual fishing effort limit being reached in 2017, owners and operators of U.S. purse seine vessels would have to cease fishing in that area for the remainder of the calendar year. Closure of the fishery in the ELAPS could thereby cause foregone fishing opportunities and associated economic losses if the ELAPS contains preferred fishing grounds during such a closure. The likelihood of the fishery being closed in the ELAPS in 2017 under the proposed rule (1,828 days) is greater than under the no-action alternative (no limit). Purse seine fishing was closed in the ELAPS in 2015 and 2016 after NMFS projected the fishing day limit would be reached in the ELAPS in those years. To determine the likelihood of the limit being reached in 2017, fishing effort in the ELAPS was considered for the most recent 10 years, but omitting 2010-2012, during which two important areas of high seas were closed to fishing. In order to make the data comparable among years, historical fishing effort as well as the proposed ELAPS limit are expressed here in terms of fishing days per year per active vessel, on average. The proposed limit is 1,828 days, and assuming 40 active vessels in 2017, this is equivalent to 45.7 fishing days per vessel per year on average (“proposed threshold”). Among the 10 years 2005-2009 and 2013-2016, fishing effort in the ELAPS ranged from 31 to 65 fishing days per year, exceeding the proposed threshold in 8 of the 10 years, or 80 percent of the time. Based on this history, the likelihood of the proposed limit being reached in 2017 is substantial—roughly 80 percent. However, current fishing patterns for 2017 as of June 2017 suggest that the rate of fishing in the ELAPS in 2017 (~220 days) is much lower than the historical average with average fishing days per vessel at 6.5 fishing days from January-June 2017. Assuming fishing conditions in the latter half of the year mimic the first half of 2017, NMFS believes that it is unlikely that the ELAPS limit would be reached in 2017. If fishing conditions in the latter half of the year were to increase to the highest rate observed in 2015 (21 fishing days/calendar day), there would be a high likelihood that the ELAPS limit would be reached prior to the end of 2017. The highest rate observed to date in 2017 has been 8.5 fishing days/calendar day, and if the highest rate in 2017 were to occur through end of 2017, the ELAPS limit would be expected to be reached by December 22, 2017.
Other factors that could influence the likelihood of the proposed limit being reached are the status of vessels with respect to whether they have fishery endorsements and are allowed to fish in the U.S. EEZ, El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, and fishing day opportunities through the South Pacific Tuna Treaty and fishing day opportunities in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Regarding the first factor, if the proportion of the fleet that has fishery endorsements changes from the proportion during the baseline period, the likelihood of the ELAPs limit being reached would change accordingly (if the proportion increases, the likelihood would increase). However, because fishing in the U.S. EEZ makes up a relatively small portion of all fishing in the ELAPS, this is a relatively minor factor, and is not examined any further here. Regarding the second factor, the eastern areas of the WCPO have tended to be comparatively more attractive to the U.S. purse seine fleet during El Nino events (versus other times), when warm surface water spreads from the western Pacific to the eastern Pacific and large, valuable yellowfin become more vulnerable to purse seine fishing. Consequently, the ELAPS, much of which is situated in the eastern range of the fleet's fishing grounds, is likely to be more important fishing grounds to the fleet during El Nino events (as compared to neutral or La Nina events). According to the National Weather Service ((see
In summary, based on the available information and particularly the current fishing patterns in 2017, there is a small likelihood that the proposed ELAPS limit would be reached before the end of 2017.
The costs associated with a closure of the ELAPS would depend greatly on the length of the closure as well as whether the EEZs of other nations, particularly the typically most favored fishing grounds, the EEZs of the PNA, or the Eastern Pacific were available for fishing. NMFS conducted a study on the economic impacts of the 2015 ELAPS closure, which lasted from June 15-December 31, 2015, and found that the 2015 ELAPS closure had an adverse impact on profitability across the combined sectors of vessels, canneries and vessel support facilities in American Samoa. During the 2015 and 2016 ELAPS closures, the EEZs of the FFA members remained available for fishing as well as fishing in the Eastern Pacific. As indicated above, there is relatively small likelihood of the EEZs of the FFA members being unavailable for fishing before the end of 2017. Assuming the EEZs of the FFA and Eastern Pacific remain available as fishing grounds, the impacts of a closure of the ELAPS would depend greatly on its length. The closure of any fishing grounds for any amount of time would be expected to bring impacts to affected entities (
The proposed 2017 ELAPS limit could affect the temporal distribution of fishing effort in the U.S. purse seine fishery. Since the limits would apply fleet-wide; that is, they would not be allocated to individual vessels, vessel operators might have an incentive to fish harder in the ELAPS earlier in a given year than they otherwise would. Such a “race-to-fish” effect might also be expected in the time period between when a closure of the fishery is announced and when it is actually closed, which would be at least seven calendar days. To the extent such temporal shifts occur, they could affect the seasonal timing of fish catches and deliveries to canneries, and conceivably affect prices. However, because most of the traditional fishing grounds are outside the ELAPS, the intensity of any race-to-fish in the ELAPS is likely to be low if it occurs at all. The small likelihood of the EEZs of the FFA being closed to fishing before the end of 2017, as discussed above, might also influence the behavior of fishermen earlier in the year, but it is not clear how it would influence fishing in the ELAPS. If fishermen are more concerned about the FFA members' EEZs closing at some point, they might fish harder in those waters earlier in the year; if, on the other hand, they are more concerned about the ELAPS closing, they might fish harder in the ELAPS earlier in the year. In any case, the timing of cannery deliveries by the U.S. fleet alone (as it might be affected by a race to fish in the ELAPS) is unlikely to have an appreciable impact on prices, since many canneries buy from the fleets of multiple nations at any given time. A race to fish could bring costs to affected entities if it causes vessel operators to forego vessel maintenance in favor of fishing or to fish in weather or ocean conditions that they otherwise would not. This could bring costs in terms of the health and safety of the crew as well as the economic performance of the vessel.
In summary, there is a small likelihood that the ELAPS limit will be reached before the end of 2017, and if it is reached before the end of 2017, the impacts to affected entities could be minor or substantial, depending on such factors as the length of the closure, whether the EEZs of the FFA members and Eastern Pacific remain available for fishing, and oceanic conditions.
There would be no disproportionate economic impacts between small and large entities operating vessels as a result of this proposed rule. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts based on vessel size, gear, or home-port.
NMFS has not identified any Federal regulations that duplicate, overlap with, or conflict with the proposed regulations.
NMFS has not been able to identify any alternatives that would accomplish the objectives of the Act and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The alternative of taking no action at all was rejected because it would fail to accomplish the objectives of the Act. As a Contracting Party to the Convention, the United States is required to implement the decisions of WCPFC. Consequently, NMFS has limited discretion as to how to implement those decisions.
In previous rulemakings to establish or revise U.S. purse seine fishing effort limits in the ELAPS in accordance with WCPFC decisions, NMFS considered a number of alternatives. The alternatives had to do, firstly, with the time scales for the limits (
The first category, time scales, is not relevant here because the objective is to implement the required fishing effort limit for 2017 only. The second category, whether to break up the ELAPS limit into separate limits for the U.S. EEZ and the high seas portions of the ELAPS, would provide less operational flexibility for affected purse seine vessels, and thus be more constraining and costly than the proposed limit. It is not preferred for that reason. The third category, allocating the limit among individual vessels, would likely alleviate any adverse impacts of a race-to-fish that might occur as a result of establishing the competitive fishing effort limits as in the proposed rule. As described in the previous paragraphs, those potential impacts include lower prices for landed product and risks to performance and safety stemming from fishing during sub-optimal times. Those impacts, however, are expected to be minor, so this alternative is not preferred.
Regarding the fourth category, the magnitude of the limits, NMFS could, as it did for the 2013 rule that established the 2013 and existing 2014 ELAPS limit, consider both smaller and larger limits for the ELAPS. Smaller limits, being more constraining and costly to affected fishing businesses, are not considered further here. CMM 2013-01 includes an explicit limit for the United States for the high seas, 1,270 fishing days per year, so NMFS is not afforded any discretion there. Like its predecessor, CMM 2012-01, CMM 2013-01 is less explicit with respect to the U.S. EEZ, so NMFS could consider a more expansive limit for that aspect of the total ELAPS limit. For example, in the 2013 rule, NMFS considered an alternative that would be based in part on the fleet's greatest annual level of fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ (on an average per-vessel basis, then expanded to a 40-vessel equivalent) during the 1997-2010 time period. Using that approach here, the U.S. EEZ aspect of the limit would be 1,655 fishing days, and when combined with the high seas aspect of 1,270 fishing days, the total ELAPS limit would be 2,925 fishing days. Because this alternative limit is greater and thus less constraining than the proposed limit of 1,828 fishing days, the costs of complying with this alternative would be less than or equal to those of the proposed limit. This alternative is not preferred because it would depart from the effort limits established for the period 2009-2016. The approach used in formulating the limit proposed in this rule is consistent with the precedent set by the 2009 rule and the 2013 rule, and affected entities have been exposed to the impacts of those limits for the past five years. The alternative of taking no action at all, which would not set any fishing day limits, is not preferred because it would fail to accomplish the objective of the WCPFC Implementation Act or satisfy the international obligations of the United States as a Contracting Party to the Convention.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 6901
(b)
(v)
(a) * * *
(1) For calendar year 2017 there is a limit of 1,828 fishing days.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a new information collection request through the
Comments must be received in writing on or before November 20, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Volunteers & Service Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Attn: Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Resources, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mailstop Code: 1125, Washington, DC 20250-1125. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 703-605-5131 or by email to:
The public may inspect comments received at the Office of the Director, Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Resources, 5th Floor South West, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 202-205-0560 to facilitate entry to the building.
Merlene Mazyck, Volunteers & Service, 202-205-0560. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The Agency has developed a tracking sheet (FS-1800-0026,
The use of the Public Lands Corps Participant Tracking Sheet ensures uniform collection of information regarding tracking and monitoring participant engagement in order to determine adherence to requirements for non-competitive hiring eligibility as defined in the Act. The data—such as participant demographic information, and project information—collected will allow the Forest Service, and other Federal Land Management Agencies, to monitor the effectiveness of Agency efforts to meet the intent of the Act, and engage under-represented populations in natural and cultural resource conservation, development and scientific research work, and education on public lands. This information collection request will ensure that partners maintain a record of all Public Lands Corps agreements established with Federal Land Management Agencies, participant demographics and education, project information and work hours, project locations and dates, and status of noncompetitive eligibility certification.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission of the information collection request to Office of Management and Budget.
Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program of the Agency's use of Supervised Bank Accounts (SBA).
Comments on this Notice must be received by November 20, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Joanna Rogers, Financial Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Portfolio Management Division, STOP 0782-Room 1263S, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0782. Telephone: (202) 720-1609.
The Agency use SBAs as a mechanism to (1) ensure correct disbursement and expenditure of all funds designated for a project; (2) help a borrower properly manage its financial affairs; (3) ensure that the Government's security is protected adequately from fraud, waste and abuse.
SBAs are mandatory for Multi-Family Housing (MFH) reserve accounts. The MFH funds must be kept in the SBA for the full term of a loan. Any funds withdrawn for disbursement for an authorized purpose require a countersignature from an Agency official.
This regulation prescribes the policies and responsibilities for the use of SBAs. In carrying out the mission as a supervised credit Agency, this regulation authorizes the use of supervised accounts for the disbursement of funds. The use may be necessitated to disburse Government funds consistent with the various stages of any development (construction) work actually achieved. On limited occasions, a supervised account is used to provide temporary credit counseling and oversight of those being assisted who demonstrate an inability to handle their financial affairs responsibly. Another use is for depositing MFH reserve account funds in a manner requiring Agency co-signature for withdrawals. MFH reserve account funds are held in a reserve account for the future capital improvement needs for apartment properties. Supervised accounts are established to ensure Government security is adequately protected against fraud, waste and abuse.
The legislative authority for requiring the use of supervised accounts is contained in section 510 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1480). These provisions authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the responsibilities and duties the Government is charged with administering.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0040.
All responses to this Notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S. Census Bureau is giving notice of a meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC). The NAC addresses policy, research, and technical issues relating to all Census Bureau programs and activities. These activities include the production and dissemination of detailed demographic and economic statistics across all program areas, including the Decennial Census programs. The NAC will meet in a plenary session on November 2-3, 2017. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent us from giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Planned topics of discussion include the following items:
• 2020 Census Program updates
• 2020 Census Operations: Integrated Communications Plan
• Undercount of Young Children Working Group update
• Integrated Partnership and Communications Working Group update
Please visit the Census Advisory Committees Web site for the most current meeting agenda at:
November 2-3, 2017. On Thursday, November 2, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. On Friday, November 3, the meeting will
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Branch Chief for Advisory Committees, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, at
The NAC was establish ed in March 2012 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10). The NAC members are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, and consider topics such as hard to reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, rural populations, and population segments with limited access to technology. The Committee also advises on data privacy and confidentiality, among other issues.
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on Friday, November 3. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to:
If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, October 30, 2017. You may access the online registration from the following link:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.
Please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
U.S. Census Bureau, 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.
To ensure consideration, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Robin A. Pennington, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233 (or via the internet at
The U.S. Census Bureau proposes a proof of concept study on the use of United States Postal Service (USPS) Postal Carriers as Census Bureau enumerators as part of the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. The possibility of formally using Postal Carriers to conduct enumeration as part of Decennial Census operations has been proposed or suggested several times in recent years by Members of Congress, as well as other advisory and oversight bodies, in response to (1) the rising operational costs of both agencies, and (2) the need for familiarity with local addresses. The suggestions often note that the USPS maintains a permanent, well trained, and experienced labor force that possesses significant public trust and detailed knowledge of the addressing and residential patterns in communities they serve.
The rationale for this study is to test and observe the feasibility of the use of Postal Carriers as enumerators in the context of an existing Census Test, and, thereby, enable the Census Bureau and USPS to better respond to stakeholder inquiries about the feasibility of such activities. The potential long-term advantages to the Census Bureau include: (1) Leveraging local USPS knowledge about households to pinpoint the best time for an interview, (2) increasing the pool of enumerators without hiring new temporary staff, and (3) providing a more flexible landscape for how and when Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) interviews occur during the enumeration phase of a census.
The Census Bureau plans to conduct a pilot in two ZIP Codes outside of—but adjacent to—the 2018 End-to-End Census Test site location in Providence County, R.I. The pilot will involve approximately 40 Postal Carriers operating out of two ZIP Codes, 02760 located in North Attleboro, MA, and 02888 located in Warwick, RI.
The proposed evaluation and deliverables are:
(1) The numbers of resolved enumeration cases will be documented to determine whether Postal Carriers were able to successfully conduct assigned NRFU activities. Documentation will identify and describe challenges and opportunities for future collaborative participation in this operation.
(2) A report that details the development of baseline metrics to describe costs and benefits of a future collaborative operation. This study will determine the information needed to assess cost differences/savings to recruiting and staff-onboarding operations by using existing USPS employees, and the value added in terms of efficiency and quality of NRFU activities, measured by numbers of visits, of using Postal Carriers with local knowledge.
(3) Results of focus group debriefings held with the Postal Carriers, their managers, and the public after the 2018 End-to-End Census Test enumeration phase is complete to describe and
Documented operational Lessons Learned from the entirety of the project and recommendations for next steps will accompany the report. The outcome of this pilot study will provide the Census Bureau and the USPS with baseline descriptive and qualitative information that can be used to inform future field-based collaborations.
Census Bureau staff will train Postal Carriers to successfully conduct enumeration to complete the activity. Postal Carriers will be sworn to uphold the same confidentiality as Census Bureau employees. They will perform enumeration functions using the same procedures and automation as other enumerators during the hours of 5 p.m.-8 p.m. on weekdays, variable weekend hours, and both inside and outside the geographic constraints of their assigned routes.
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.
U.S. Census Bureau, 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, Public Law 104-13.
To ensure consideration, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Erica Filipek, U.S. Census Bureau, EID, CENHQ Room 7K057, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301)763-5161 (or via the Internet at
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to request a three-year extension of the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Survey of Housing Starts, Sales and Completions, also known as the Survey of Construction (SOC). We also plan revisions to the current collection. The SOC collects monthly data on new residential construction from a sample of owners or builders. The Census Bureau uses the Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) electronic questionnaires SOC-QI/SF.1 and SOC-QI/MF.1 to collect data on start and completion dates of construction, physical characteristics of the structure (floor area, number of bathrooms, type of heating system, etc.), and if applicable, date of sale, sales price, and type of financing. The SOC provides widely used measures of construction activity, including the economic indicators Housing Starts and Housing Completions, which are from the New Residential Construction series, and New Residential Sales.
After working with the survey sponsor and key data users, the Census Bureau has decided to add one new data item to the single-family questionnaire regarding ceiling height.
With respect to survey burden, the Census Bureau samples about 1,620 new buildings each month (19,440 per year). Census Bureau staff inquire about the progress of each building multiple times until it is completed (and a sales contract is signed, if it is a single-family house that is built for sale). For single-family buildings, there are an average of 8.11 interviews and for multifamily buildings, an average of 7.0 interviews. The total number of interviews conducted each year for single-family buildings is about 102,186 and for multifamily buildings is about 47,880. Each interview takes 5 minutes on average. Therefore, the total annual burden is 12,506 hours.
The Census Bureau uses its field representatives to collect the data through CAPI.
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
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.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable. September 13, 2017.
Lilit Astvatsatrian at (202) 482-6412 or Ariela Garvett at (202) 482-3609, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 24, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan, filed in proper form on behalf of Titanium Metals Corporation (the petitioner). The CVD Petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan.
On August 30, 2017, the Department requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of Kazakhstan (GOK) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act, to imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing titanium sponge in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on August 24, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is titanium sponge from Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
During our review of the Petition, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOK of the receipt of the Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that titanium sponge, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioner provided its own 2016 production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting the Department to initiate.
Because Kazakhstan is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; displacement of U.S. production by subject imports; underselling and price suppression or depression; decline in production, capacity utilization, hours worked, and earnings before interest and taxes; lost sales and revenues; and decline in pricing for downstream titanium products.
Based on the examination of the CVD Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on three of the four alleged programs in Kazakhstan. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program,
Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the Government of Kazakhstan. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.
In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on information from independent sources, the petitioner named one company as a producer/exporter of titanium sponge in Kazakhstan.
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOK
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of titanium sponge from Kazakhstan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.
The product covered by this investigation is all forms and grades of titanium sponge, except as specified below. Titanium sponge is unwrought titanium metal that has not been melted. Expressly excluded from the scope of this investigation are:
(1) Loose particles of unwrought titanium metal having a particle size of less than 20 mesh (0.84 mm);
(2) alloyed or unalloyed briquettes of unwrought titanium metal that contain more than 0.2% oxygen on a dry weight basis; and
(3) ultra‐high purity titanium sponge. In ultra‐high purity titanium sponge, metallic impurities do not exceed any of these amounts:
Titanium sponge is currently classified under subheading 8108.20.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 13, 2017.
Aleksandras Nakutis at (202) 482-3147 (Japan) and Jonathan Hill at (202) 482-3518 (Kazakhstan), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 24, 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) Petitions concerning imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan, filed in proper form on behalf of Titanium Metals Corporation (the petitioner).
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing titanium sponge in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petitions were filed on August 24, 2017, the period of investigation (POI) for these investigations is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.
The product covered by these investigations is titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).
The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD titanium sponge investigations.
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).
The Department will provide interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of titanium sponge to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they believe are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe titanium sponge, it may be that only a select few product characteristics are commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that titanium sponge, as defined in the scope, constitutes a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the Appendix to this notice. The petitioner provided its own 2016 production of the domestic like product, and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.
The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and that the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting the Department to initiate.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share;
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
For Japan, the petitioner based U.S. export prices (EPs) on price quotes for sales of titanium sponge produced in, and exported from, Japan and offered for sale in the United States, and on average unit values (AUVs) obtained from official import statistics.
The petitioner was unable to obtain any prices of sales (or offers for sale) of titanium sponge in Kazakhstan.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and profit. The petitioner determined the COM of titanium sponge by adding together the costs of raw materials, labor, maintenance, electricity, other supplies, and factory overhead, as applicable, incurred by the petitioner, adjusted, where possible, for known differences from costs in Japan and Kazakhstan during a contemporaneous period to the POI. Specifically, the petitioner adjusted for known differences in costs by using publicly available labor and energy rates for Japan and Kazakhstan. The petitioner based prices for raw materials, maintenance, other supplies and factory overhead on the petitioner's own costs as such costs in Japan and Kazakhstan were not reasonably available to the petitioner. The petitioner calculated SG&A expenses, financial expense, and profit based on the experience of Japanese and Kazakh producers of identical merchandise.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan are as follows: Japan—69.69% to 95.20% percent;
Based upon our examination of the AD Petitions, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of titanium sponge from Japan and Kazakhstan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations in these investigations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program,
Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD law were made.
Although the Department normally relies on the number of producers/exporters identified in the petition and/or import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to determine whether to select a limited number of producers/exporters for individual examination in AD investigations, the petitioner identified only two companies as producers/exporters of titanium sponge from Japan: Osaka Titanium Technologies Co., Ltd. and Toho Titanium Company., Ltd.; and one company as a producer/exporter of titanium sponge form Kazakhstan: UKTMP. We currently know of no additional producers/exporters of the merchandise under consideration from Japan or Kazakhstan and the petitioner provided information from an independent source as support for its claim that there are only two producers/exporters or titanium sponge in Japan and only one producer/exporter or titanium sponge in Kazakhstan.
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Japan and Kazakhstan
We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of titanium sponge from Japan and/or Kazakhstan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country. Otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The product covered by these investigations is all forms and grades of titanium sponge, except as specified below. Titanium sponge is unwrought titanium metal that has not been melted. Expressly excluded from the scope of these investigations are:
(1) Loose particles of unwrought titanium metal having a particle size of less than 20 mesh (0.84 mm);
(2) alloyed or unalloyed briquettes of unwrought titanium metal that contain more than 0.2% oxygen on a dry weight basis; and
(3) ultra‐high purity titanium sponge. In ultra‐high purity titanium sponge, metallic impurities do not exceed any of these amounts:
Titanium sponge is currently classified under subheading 8108.20.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of rescheduled meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Projects/Topics Management; Volunteers; Communication/Outreach/Education Action Teams.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Projects/Topics Management; Volunteers; Communication/Outreach/Education Action Teams via webinar. The meetings via webinar were originally scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1 p.m. (Projects/Topics Management); Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1 p.m. (Volunteers); Friday, September 22, 2017 at 10 a.m. (Communication/Outreach/Education) but have been rescheduled as a result of wide-spread impacts due to Hurricane Irma [See
The Volunteers Team meeting has been rescheduled for Monday, October 2, 2017 at 1 p.m.; Projects/Topics Management Team on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2 p.m.; and Communication/Outreach/Education Team on Wednesday, October 4 at 1 p.m. Each meeting is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. Additional Action Team webinar and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
The meetings will be held via webinar and are open to members of the public. Webinar registration is required and registration links will be posted to the Citizen Science program page of the Council's Web site at
Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
Due to the impacts of Hurricane Irma and ongoing recovery efforts in the South Atlantic region, the meetings of the Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Projects/Topics Management; Volunteers; Communication/Outreach/Education Action Team originally scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1 p.m. (Projects/Topics Management); Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1 p.m. (Volunteers); Friday, September 22, 2017 at 10 a.m. (Communication/Outreach/Education) have been rescheduled. The originally scheduled meetings were published in the
The Volunteers Team meeting has been rescheduled for Monday, October 2, 2017 at 1 p.m.; Projects/Topics Management Team on Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2 p.m.; and Communication/Outreach/Education Team on Wednesday, October 4 at 1 p.m.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of
The Communication/Outreach/Education; Projects/Topics Management; Volunteers Action Teams will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting.
Items to be addressed during these meetings:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of applications.
Notice is hereby given that the following entities have applied in due form for a permit to receive, import, and/or export marine mammal parts for scientific research:
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before October 20, 2017.
The applications and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available 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.
Written comments on these applications should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the application would be appropriate.
Lisa Lierheimer or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (webinar).
The Groundfish Subcommittee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting via webinar to review analyses informing 2019 and 2020 groundfish harvest specifications and other matters that will be considered at the November 14-20, 2017 Pacific Council meetings in Costa Mesa, California. The webinar meeting is open to the public.
The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee webinar will be held Thursday, September 28, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Pacific Daylight Time) or until business for the day has been completed.
The SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee meeting will be held by webinar. To attend the webinar, (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: 503-820-2413.
The purpose of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meeting is to review a new yelloweye rockfish rebuilding analysis, and review new data-limited estimates of overfishing limits (OFLs) for cowcod in the Monterey area, starry flounder, gopher rockfish off California, greenspotted rockfish north of 42° N. lat., blue and deacon rockfishes south of
No management actions will be decided by the SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee members' role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the SSC and Pacific Council at the November meeting in Costa Mesa, California.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt 503-820-2411 at least ten days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Ecosystem and Ocean Planning (EOP) Committee with Advisory Panel (AP) will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Friday October 6, 2017. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and conclude no later than 3 p.m. The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. For agenda details, see
Information about connecting to this webinar based meeting will be posted on the Council Web site at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of the meeting is to review the final list of risk elements to be evaluated by the Council as part of its Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. At this meeting, the EOP Committee and Advisors will provide final rankings of the risk elements that will be communicated to the full Council at its October meeting in Riverhead, NY. Once adopted, the prioritized risk matrix will be used by the Council to inform its future work and scientific research plans.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2017.
Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by either of the following methods. Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0079.
•
•
A copy of all comments submitted to OIRA should be sent to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) by either of the following methods. The copies should refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0079.
•
•
•
Katherine Driscoll, Associate Chief Counsel, (202) 418-5544,
On June 20, 2017, the Commission published in the
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open subcommittee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Board of Visitors, a subcommittee of the Army Education Advisory Committee. This meeting is open to the public.
The CGSC Board of Visitors Subcommittee will meet from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on November 6 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on November 7, 2017.
U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, Lewis and Clark Center, 100 Stimson Ave., Bell Conference Room, Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027.
Dr. Robert Baumann, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the subcommittee, in writing at Command and General Staff College, 100 Stimson Ave., Ft. Leavenworth, KS 66027, by email at
The subcommittee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Because the meeting of the subcommittee will be held in a Federal Government facility on a military base, security screening is required. A photo ID is required to enter base. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeing to enter and exit the installation. Lewis and Clark Center is fully handicap accessible. Wheelchair access is available in front at the main entrance of the building. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Dr. Baumann, the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least seven business days in advance to the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the
Office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group will take place.
Day 1—Closed to the public Tuesday, October 16, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Day 2—Closed to the public Wednesday, October 17, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Dougherty Conference Center, Building 432, 906 SAC Boulevard, Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113.
John Trefz, (402) 294-4102 (Voice), (402) 294-3128 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Scientific Advisory Board will take place.
1st meeting: Open to the public Tuesday, October 17, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:50 p.m. 2nd meeting: Day 1—Open to the public Wednesday, October 18, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:40 p.m. Day 2—Open to the public Thursday, October 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:55 p.m.
The address for both meetings is the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22203.
Herb Nelson, 571-372-6400 (Voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. This notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).
Thursday, October 19, 2017: 8:30 a.m.: Convene—Dr. Joseph Hughes, Chair; 8:40 a.m. Weapons Systems and Platforms Overview—Dr. Robin Nissan, WP Program Manager; 8:50 a.m. WP18-C4-1047 (WP18-1047): Development of an Agile, Novel Expeditionary Battlefield Manufacturing Plant using Recycled and Reclaimed Thermoplastic Materials (FY18 New Start)—Dr. Prabhat Krishnaswamy, Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus; 9:35 a.m. WP18-C4-1323 (WP18-1323): Recycling and Reuse of Metal Alloys by a Single Solid-State Additive Manufacturing and Repair Process (FY18 New Start)—Dr. Paul Allison, University of Alabama; 10:20 a.m. Break; 10:35 a.m. Weapons Systems and Platforms Overview—Dr. Robin Nissan, WP Program Manager; 10:45 a.m. WP18-C1-1114 (WP18-1114): Emulsion Characterization Study for Improved Bilgewater Treatment and Management (FY18 New Start)—Ms. Danielle Paynter, Naval Surface Warfare Center; 11:30 a.m. Weapons Systems and Platforms Overview—Dr. Robin Nissan, WP Program Manager; 11:40 a.m. WP18-C3-1193 (WP18-1193): An Integral Hypergolic Hybrid-Solid Fuel Ramjet Concept for AP-Free High Performance Tactical Rocket Motors (FY18 New Start)—Dr. Mark Pfeil, U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center; 12:25 p.m. Lunch; 1:25 p.m. Weapons Systems and Platforms Overview—Dr. Robin Nissan, WP Program Manager; 1:35 p.m. WP18-F2-1439 (WP18-1439) Development and Evaluation of Non-Chromate LHE ZnNi Passivations for DoD Electrical Connectors (Follow-on to FY15 SEED Project)—Dr. Matthew O'Keefe, Missouri S&T; 2:20 p.m. Munitions Response Overview—Dr. Herbert Nelson, Munitions Response Program Manager; 2:30 p.m. MR18-C1-1233 (MR18-1233): Improved Penetrometer Performance in Stratified Sediment for Cost-Effective Characterization, Monitoring and Management of Submerged Munitions Sites (FY18 New Start)—Dr. Nina Stark, Virginia Tech; 3:15 p.m. Break; 3:30 p.m. Environmental Restoration Overview—Dr. Andrea Leeson, ER Program Manager; 3:40 p.m. ER-2531: Role of Acidophilic Methanotrophs in Long Term Natural Attenuation of VOCs in Low pH Aquifers (Follow On to FY15 Limited Scope Project)—Dr. Paul Hatzinger, Aptim Federal Services; 4:25 p.m. Strategy Session—Dr. Herb Nelson, Acting Executive Director; 4:55 p.m. Public Discussion/Adjourn.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
A notice of intent was published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the
Public comments will be accepted during the 45-day scoping period from August 22, 2017 to October 6, 2017.
Comments may be provided via mail to the address provided below or through the project Web site at
Mr. John Mosher, 360-257-3234,
12:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., September 26, 2017.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Headquarters, 625 Indiana
Open.
This public meeting will be conducted pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Board's implementing regulations for the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Board's Operating Procedures. The objective of this public business meeting is for the Board to obtain testimony from the DNFSB staff on their completed and documented efforts to date regarding oversight of emergency preparedness and response, with a special emphasis on Board Recommendation 2014-1, and provide an opportunity for the Board to deliberate on these topics. The meeting will proceed in accordance with the meeting agenda, which is posted on the Board's public Web site at
Public participation in the meeting is invited during the public comment period of the agenda. Persons interested in speaking during the public comment period are encouraged to pre-register by submitting a request in writing to the Board's address listed above, emailing
The meeting will be presented live through internet video streaming. A link to the presentation will be available on the Board's Web site (
Glenn Sklar, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016.
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement extends, for certain prospective eligible applicants described elsewhere in this notice, the deadline date for transmittal of applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 under the Promise Neighborhoods program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.215N. The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary takes this action to allow more time for the preparation and submission of applications by prospective eligible applicants affected by the severe storms and flooding beginning on August 25, 2017, in Texas or Louisiana.
The extension of the application deadline date for this competition is intended to help affected eligible applicants compete fairly with other eligible applicants under this competition.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 6, 2017. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 6, 2017.
Adrienne Hawkins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W256, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5638. Email address:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On July 21, 2017, we published in the
In accordance with the NIA, an eligible applicant for the Promise Neighborhoods program:
(1) Is representative of the geographic area proposed to be served;
(2) Is one of the following:
(a) A nonprofit organization that meets the definition of a nonprofit under 34 CFR 77.1(c), which may include a faith-based nonprofit organization.
(b) An institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(c) An Indian tribe (as defined in the NIA);
(3) Currently provides at least one of the solutions from the applicant's proposed continuum of solutions in the geographic area proposed to be served; and
(4) Operates or proposes to work with and involve in carrying out its proposed project, in coordination with the school's local educational agency (LEA), at least one public elementary or secondary school that is located within the identified geographic area that the grant will serve.
In the case of an eligible applicant that is a partnership, the extension of the application deadline date applies if any of the entities required to be part of the partnership (
An eligible applicant submitting an application under the extended deadline must provide a certification in its application that it meets the criteria for doing so and be prepared to provide appropriate supporting documentation, if requested. If such an eligible applicant is submitting its application electronically, the submission of the application serves as the eligible applicant's attestation that it meets the
All information in the NIA published on July 21, 2017 (82 FR 33881) for this competition remains the same, except for the deadline date.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver, notice of grant an interim waiver, and request for comment.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from JCI seeking an exemption from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the efficiency of central air conditioners (CAC) and heat pumps (HP). According to JCI, testing its CAC and HP basic models that use variable-speed, oil-injected scroll compressors (VSS systems) with only a 20-hour break-in period produces results unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics, and would provide materially inaccurate comparative data. JCI requests that in lieu of the 20-hour break-in limit, it be permitted to test its VSS systems with a 72-hour break-in period. This notice also grants JCI an interim waiver from the DOE CAC and HP test procedure for its specified basic models, subject to use of the alternative test procedure as set forth in this notice. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning JCI's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the JCI Petition until October 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by case number “CAC-051” and Docket number “EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0037,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The docket Web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy Debutts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email:
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email:
Title III, Part B
DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
On May 17, 2017, JCI filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the applicable CAC and HP test procedure set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M and 10 CFR 429.16. On June 2, 2017, JCI supplemented its petition with additional information. According to JCI, testing its CAC and HP basic models that use variable-speed, oil-injected scroll compressors (VSS systems) with only a 20-hour break-in period produces results unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics, and would provide materially inaccurate comparative data. JCI requests that in lieu of the 20-hour break-in limit, it be permitted to test its VSS systems with a 72-hour break-in period. Consequently, JCI seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific CAC and HP basic models, which increases the break-in time limit stipulated in section 3.1.7 of Appendix M to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.
JCI also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).
DOE has reviewed the test data provided by JCI and agrees that it demonstrates that the specified VSS system models that are the subject of the waiver have compressors that may require more than the 20 hours of break-in time allowed by the DOE test procedure. The oil injected into the oil-injected scroll compressors increases the coverage of the viscous oil layer between mating surfaces of the scroll. This is presumably its purpose,
DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, JCI's products cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure suggested by JCI and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the energy use of these CAC and HP basic models based on the information and data supplied by JCI.
Consequently, DOE has determined that JCI's petition for waiver will likely be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant JCI immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
For the reasons stated above, DOE has granted JCI's application for interim waiver from testing for its specified CAC and HP basic models. The substance of DOE's Interim Waiver Order is summarized below.
JCI is required to use the alternate test procedures set forth in this notice to test and rate certain CAC and HP basic models that use certain variable-speed, oil-injected scroll compressors (VSS systems). Specifically, this requirement applies to JCI CAC and HP basic models that (1) have a VSS system that use one of the compressor models JCI specified to DOE on June 2, 2017 with a request for confidential treatment and (2) include the following outdoor unit models in combinations, listed by brand name:
JCI is permitted to make representations about the energy use of these basic models for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that such products have been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.16.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, and in this case only those models that use the specified compressors, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. JCI may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(g). In addition, DOE notes that granting of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR 429. See also 10 CFR 430.27(a) and (i).
The interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h) and (l). Furthermore, this interim waiver is conditioned upon the presumed validity of statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner. DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. See
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for JCI in a subsequent Decision and Order.
In its petition, JCI proposes that the basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for residential CAC and HP prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, except that the 20-hour break-in period maximum in section 3.1.7 of appendix M be replaced with a 72-hour maximum. With JCI's proposed alternative test procedure, this section of the test procedure reads as follows:
Manufacturers may optionally operate the equipment under test for a “break-in” period, not to exceed 72 hours, prior to conducting the test method specified in this section. A manufacturer who elects to use this optional compressor break-in period in its certification testing should record this information (including the duration) in the test data underlying the certified ratings that are required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71. When testing a ducted unit (except if a heating- only heat pump), conduct the A or A
Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of JCI's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain CAC and HP basic models and grants JCI an interim waiver from the test procedure for the specified basic models that use variable- speed, oil-injected scroll compressors (VSS systems). DOE is publishing JCI's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 439.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section IV of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of JCI's specified CAC and HP models. DOE may consider including this alternate procedure in a subsequent Decision and Order.
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure. More specifically, DOE is seeking test data and additional information on the performance on CAC and HP basic models with VSS compressors as well as the VSS compressor performance information as a function of time. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Steve Tice, UPG Vice-President, Engineering, Unitary Products, Johnson Controls, Inc., 3110 N. Mead St., Wichita, KS 67219. All comment submissions must include the agency name and Case Number CAC-051 for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies to DOE: One copy of the document marked “confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential included, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with all of the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Dear Ms. Armstrong: Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) respectfully submits this petition for waiver, and request for interim waiver,
Johnson Controls, Inc. is a diversified equipment and technology company with its operational headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and approximately 140,000 employees located around the globe. Our employees provide intelligent buildings, energy efficient solutions and integrated infrastructure to optimize energy efficiency and to create the smart buildings and communities of the future. Through its Unitary Product Group division, JCI manufactures and sells central air conditioner and heat pump systems for residential use, including high efficiency variable speed systems. These products are manufactured in the United States, in Wichita, Kansas.
A “break-in” period contemplates the running of equipment for a period of time before beginning of an efficiency test.
Section 3.1.7 of Appendix M to 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B provides that “[m]anufacturers may optionally operate the equipment under test for a “break-in” period, not to exceed 20 hours,” provided that the manufacturer reports the break-in period used in any certification to DOE.
JCI requests a waiver from the 20 Hour Break-In Limit for its split-system CAC and HP basic models that use variable speed scroll compressors with an oil-injection system. Specifically, JCI requests waiver for all basic models that include the following outdoor unit models in combinations, listed by brand name:
The variable speed scroll compressors used in these systems are optimized for high-efficiency residential air conditioner and heat pump systems in the 2-ton to 5-ton range.
DOE's regulations provide for granting of a test procedure waiver where testing of a basic model under the prescribed test procedures would “evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy . . . consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.”
JCI's VSS systems require significantly more than 20 hours of break-in to reach design efficiency, which is the level of efficiency that is representative of system performance over the lifetime of the VSS system, and would be more appropriately tested with a break-in period of 72 hours. DOE established the 20 hour Break-in Limit to reduce test variability,
JCI conducted baseline VSS system performance tests under Appendix M after 20 hours of break-in—the maximum currently permitted under Appendix M.
Table 1 below shows testing data for a 3-ton air conditioning unit with a variable speed scroll compressor with oil injection tested after 20 hours of break-in. The unit was started at A2 conditions and instrumentation was verified before starting the A2 test with 20 hours of accumulated compressor run time. Completion of the A2 test was followed by the B2, B1, Ev, and F1 tests.
JCI then operated the test system for an additional 24 hours, for a total compressor run time of 44 hours, to determine if an increased break-in period improved performance. The results in Table 1 show the calculated SEER improved by 0.77 with this additional 24 hour period of break in. The most substantial gain was found in the EV, B1 and F1 tests.
JCI then operated the test system for two more 24-hour break-in periods and collected system performance data after each break-in period. A second system was also installed into a psychrometric test cell and tested after the same intervals of compressor run time. As shown in Table 2, the performance data from both samples shows improvement after the first two additional 24-hour break-in periods, tapering off in the third 24-hour break-in period. With an additional 48 hours of break-in, there is an average of 7.5% improvement in SEER across both tests. Sample 1 improved from a SEER of 19.30 to 20.46 and sample 2 improved from a SEER of 18.97 to 20.70. This average gain of more than 1.0 SEER is significant in the current marketplace.
Additional unit sizes were tested using the same procedure as described above. As shown in Tables 3 and 4 below, results from those additional tests show the same pattern—increased efficiency with longer break-in periods beyond 20 hours.
In evaluating this test data, JCI determined that the increase in system efficiency and reduced test variability that occurs with the lengthier break-in periods was principally due to a reduction in required compressor power during the test. Figures 5 and 6 show the decrease in compressor watts compared to the 20-hour baseline compressor for 3-ton and 5-ton AC systems. For both systems, results show a consistent reduction in watts consumed as the break-in time of the compressor is increased. This is most significant at the Ev, B1 and F1 test conditions.
See the following Web site for figure 5:
See the
These test results show that a VSS system is not fully broken in at 20 hours, and that rating such a system with only 20-hour break-in period can understate a system's SEER rating performance by 1 to 2 SEER (or approximately 5% to 10%). Because the 20 Hour Break-In Limit does not allow sufficient time for full break-in of VSS systems, the efficiency rating of a VSS system measured under Appendix M falls below the actual efficiency level at which the system will operate for the great majority of its time in service. JCI is thus unable to represent, on the basis of Appendix M testing, the full efficiency at which its VSS systems will operate. To achieve a particular efficiency rating under the Appendix M test method, JCI is forced to overdesign its VSS systems to meet an even higher target efficiency rating after full break-in. In short, the 20 Hour Break-In Limit in Appendix M results in the underrating of JCI's VCC systems, and thus produces materially inaccurate data about the efficiency of VSS systems for comparison purposes, leaving homeowners without the information needed to objectively evaluate the benefits of such systems.
This underrating under Appendix M for JCI's VSS systems has significant consequences in the marketplace. Because of underrating due to the 20 Hour Break-In Limit, the full efficiency advantage of JCI's VSS systems will not be apparent versus lower-efficiency full stage compressor products, for which the 20 Hour Break-In Limit does not bias results. Consumers for whom central air conditioner measured efficiency is an important factor will be misled about the merits of VSS systems on the basis of measured efficiency under Appendix M. Although the JCI models at issue are very efficient, and perform well above the applicable minimum efficiency standards, accurate ratings for high efficiency products such as these are important for purposes of, for instance, determining eligibility for Energy Star, utility rebates, tax credits, and green building recognition.
DOE's Appendix M test procedure, as currently promulgated but with the option of an extended, 72-hour break-in period, constitutes the appropriate alternate test procedure that will evaluate the performance of JCI's VSS systems in a manner representative of its energy characteristics. Therefore, JCI proposes to test the basic models for which it seeks waiver by applying the entirety of Appendix M to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, with a single modification to Section 3.1.7, as shown below:
Manufacturers may optionally operate the equipment under test for a “break-in” period, not to exceed
Thus, the only change would be to modify the maximum length of the optional break-in period for JCI's VSS systems. As required by Appendix M, JCI would report the break-in period used in its product compliance certifications.
JCI is aware of the following manufacturers of residential central air conditioners and heat pumps that offer VSS systems using scroll compressors with oil injection: Carrier Corporation, Daikin Industries, Goodman Manufacturing Co. LP, Lennox International Inc., Nortek Global HVAC, Rheem Sales Company, and Trane.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, JCI also requests an interim waiver of the 20 Hour Break-In Limit for the JCI VSS systems. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver.
For all of these reasons, the Department should grant an interim waiver while it considers the petition for waiver set out above.
For the reasons stated above, JCI respectfully requests that DOE grant this petition for waiver of the 20 Hour Break-In Limit with respect to its VSS systems. JCI further requests DOE to grant its request for an interim waiver while its petition for waiver is under consideration.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this request, please contact me at (316) 832-6393, Chris Ware at (414) 524-5443, or Doug Smith of Van Ness Feldman, LLP at (202) 298-1902. We greatly appreciate your attention to this matter.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Rock Creek Wind Project, 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 4, 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 Online service, please email
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Wekiva Parkway Relocation Project, proposed by Florida Gas Transmission Company, L.L.C. (Florida Gas) in the above-referenced docket. Florida Gas requests authorization to abandon in place and relocate portions of their existing 12-inch Sanford Lateral and 26-inch Sanford Lateral Loop pipeline in Lake and Seminole Counties, FL, that conflict with construction of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Wekiva Parkway. The affected pipelines are to be relocated to new adjacent right-of-way abutting the north side of FDOT's Wekiva Parkway right-of-way.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Wekiva Parkway Relocation Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC, on or before October 14, 2017.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP17-79-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of SunSea Energy, 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 4, 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 Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On April 26, 2017, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-256-000 requesting authorization pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act, to abandon in-place certain compression facilities. The proposed project is known as the Morgan City and Youngsville Compressor Station Abandonment Project (Project), and would consist of abandoning in-place certain facilities at the Morgan City Compressor Station in Assumption Parish, Louisiana, and the Lafayette (referred to as “Youngsville”) Compressor Station in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. In addition, Texas Gas would relinquish the firm design capacity associated with the Project facilities.
On May 9, 2017, revised on May 19, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Texas Gas proposes to abandon in-place the Morgan City Compressor Station consisting of one 9,100 horsepower gas-fired turbine compressor unit, a compressor building, yard and station piping, and appurtenant auxiliary facilities located in Assumption Parish, Louisiana, and abandon in-place one 9,100 horsepower gas-fired turbine compressor unit and its compressor building at the Lafayette (Youngsville) Compressor Station located in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Red Dirt Wind Project, 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 4, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the
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 Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Intended Transfer of Confidential Business Information to Contractor.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to transfer confidential business information (CBI) collected from the steam electric power generating industry to ICF International (ICF). Transfer of the information will allow the contractor to support EPA in its reconsideration of effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category on November 3, 2015. The information being transferred was or will be collected under the authority of section 308 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Interested persons may submit comments on this intended transfer of information to the address noted below.
Comments on the transfer of data are due September 27, 2017.
Comments may be sent to M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Document Control Officer, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Document Control Officer, at (202) 566-1044, or via email at
EPA has transferred CBI to various contractors and subcontractors over the history of the effluent guidelines program under 40 CFR 2.302(h). EPA determined that this transfer was necessary to enable the contractors and subcontractors to perform their work in supporting EPA in planning, developing, and reviewing effluent guidelines and standards for certain industries.
Today, pursuant to 40 CFR 2.302(h)(2), EPA is giving notice that it will be transferring CBI to ICF (located in Fairfax, VA), which operates under contract number EP-C-16-011. The purpose of this transfer is to support economic analysis support for EPA in its reconsideration of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category established in 2015.
All EPA contractor, subcontractor, and consultant personnel are bound by the requirements and sanctions contained in their contracts with EPA and in EPA's confidentiality regulations found at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. ICF will adhere to an EPA-approved security plan which describes procedures to protect CBI. ICF will apply the procedures in this plan to CBI previously gathered by EPA and to CBI that may be gathered in the future. The security plan specifies that contractor personnel are required to sign non-disclosure agreements and are briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to CBI. No person is automatically granted access to CBI: A need to know must exist.
The information that will be transferred to ICF consists of information previously collected by EPA to support the development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards under the CWA for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category and any that may be collected in the future under the authority of section 308 of the CWA or voluntarily submitted (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decision for the 22 sulfonylurea herbicide chemicals listed in the Table in Unit II of this Notice. It also announces the case closure for desmedipham (Case 2150 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1044), Busan 1024 (case 5026 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0243), Bis (trichloromethyl) sulfone (BTS) (Case 2055 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0614), Perboric Acid (Case 5007 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0006), and profenofos (Case 2540 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0345) because all of the U.S. registrations for these pesticides have been canceled. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration; that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decision for the 22 sulfonylurea chemicals listed in the Table in Unit II. A single interim decision document covers all 22 chemicals and is being cross-posted in each of the public dockets identified in the Table in Unit II.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA has considered the chemicals listed in the following Table in light of the FIFRA standard for registration. The interim registration review decisions are supported by rationales included in the docket established for each chemical.
In addition to the interim registration review decision document, the registration review docket for the chemicals listed in the Table also includes other relevant documents related to the registration review of these cases. The proposed interim registration review decision was posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information.
EPA addressed the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide listed in the Table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were received may or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for the chemicals listed in the Table will remain open until all actions required in the interim decision have been completed.
Background on the registration review program is provided at:
This document also announces the closure of the registration review case for Desmedipham (Case 2150 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1044), Busan 1024 (case 5026 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0243), Bis (trichloromethyl) sulfone (BTS) (Case 2055 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0614), Perboric Acid (Case 5007 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0006), and Profenofos (Case 2540 and Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0345) because all of the U.S. registrations for these pesticides have been canceled.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Initiation of scoping.
Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, and EPA's regulations for implementing NEPA, EPA will prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts related to providing individual long-term, low-cost supplemental loans or loan guarantees for regionally and nationally significant eligible water and wastewater infrastructure projects under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program. EPA will use the information in the PEA to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposed actions under WIFIA that have potential impacts not sufficiently addressed by this PEA may require consideration in a separate NEPA document.
This notice initiates the scoping process by inviting comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public to help identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the PEA. The scoping process will inform the preparation and issuance of the PEA, which will be made available for public comment.
Comments must be received on or before October 20th, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0518 to the
Alejandro Escobar, Water Infrastructure Division, WIFIA Program, Mail Code: 4201T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-9047; email address
EPA is seeking public comment to determine the scope of projects, environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be addressed in the PEA on providing loans or loan guarantees for water and wastewater infrastructure projects under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program.
The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA) established the WIFIA program, a federal credit program administered by EPA for eligible water and wastewater infrastructure projects. WIFIA and the WIFIA implementation rule (see 81 FR 91822) outline the eligibility and other requirements for prospective borrowers. Eligible borrowers are: Local, State, Tribal, and Federal government entities; partnerships and joint ventures; corporations and trusts; and Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs.
The WIFIA program can finance development and implementation activities for the following eligible projects: Wastewater conveyance and treatment projects that are eligible for the Clean Water SRF; drinking water treatment and distribution projects that are eligible for the Drinking Water SRF; enhanced energy efficiency projects at drinking water and wastewater facilities; brackish or seawater desalination, aquifer recharge, alternative water supply, and water recycling projects; drought prevention, reduction, or mitigation projects; acquisition of property if it is integral to the project or will mitigate the environmental impact of a project; and a combination of projects secured by a common security pledge or submitted under one application by an SRF program.
Eligible development and implementation activities are: Development phase activities, including planning, preliminary engineering, design, environmental review, revenue forecasting, and other pre-construction activities; construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and replacement activities; acquisition of real property or an interest in real property, environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, and acquisition of equipment; capitalized interest necessary to meet market requirements, reasonably required reserve funds, capital issuance expenses and other carrying costs during construction.
EPA is currently planning to analyze two alternatives in the PEA: No Action, that is not providing financing; and the proposed action, which is providing financing to individual selected applicants. The PEA will focus its analysis on the potential environmental impacts of both alternatives. Subject areas to be addressed include, but are not limited to: Public health, water quality and quantity (surface and groundwater), historic properties, and threatened and endangered species.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is extending the compliance dates published in the
For TSCA submissions containing information claimed as CBI that was filed between June 22, 2016 and March 21, 2017, submitters have until October 19, 2017 to provide the required substantiation.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0026, is available at
This announcement is directed to the public in general. It may, however, be of particular interest to you if you manufacture (defined by statute to include import) and/or process chemicals covered by TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601
EPA is extending the compliance dates published in the
For more detail on the requirements of TSCA section 14(c)(3) and how to comply with those requirements, see the
EPA has determined that TSCA section 14(c)(3), 15 U.S.C. 2613(c)(3), requires an affected business to substantiate all TSCA CBI claims, except for information subject to TSCA section 14(c)(2), at the time the affected business submits the claimed information to EPA.
TSCA section 14(c)(1)(a) requires an affected business to assert a claim for protection from disclosure concurrent with submission of the information in accordance with existing or future rules. TSCA section 14(c)(3) in turn requires an affected business submitting a claim to protect information from disclosure to substantiate the claim, also in accordance with existing or future rules.
Because EPA published its interpretation that TSCA section 14(c)(3) requires up front substantiation after some companies had already asserted confidentiality claims subject to TSCA section 14(c)(3), the Agency set a future deadline for submission of substantiations pertaining to those submissions. This notice extends that deadline.
15 U.S.C. 2601
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.
82 FR 42682.
Thursday, September 14, 2017 AT 11:15 a.m.
The meeting took place at 1:15 p.m.
The Following Item Was Also Discussed: REG 2011-02 (Internet Communication Disclaimers).
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Proposed Revised Policy Statements.
The Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council requests public comment on a proposal to revise ASC Policy Statements (proposed Policy Statements). The proposed Policy Statements provide guidance to ensure State appraiser regulatory programs comply with Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The proposed Policy Statements would supersede the current ASC Policy Statements. The ASC previously published the Proposed Revised Policy Statements on January 10, 2017, under Docket Number AS17-01. The comment period was scheduled to close on April 10, 2017. The ASC suspended the comment period in response to the White House Chief of Staff Memorandum titled Regulatory Freeze Pending Review, signed on January 20, 2017, pending review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Technical edits for clarification have been made to the proposed Policy Statements since the initial publication, which are addressed below in Supplementary Information, section III,
Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number AS17-06, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
In general, the ASC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish those comments on the Federal eRulemaking (Regulations.gov) Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide, such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. At the close of the comment period, all public comments will also be made available on the ASC's Web site at
You may review comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
James R. Park, Executive Director, at (202) 595-7575, or Alice M. Ritter, General Counsel, at (202) 595-7577, Appraisal Subcommittee, 1401 H Street NW., Suite 760, Washington, DC 20005.
Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended (Title XI), established the ASC.
Title XI as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act)
The ASC is issuing these proposed Policy Statements
➢ Part A,
➢ Part B,
➢ Part C,
The proposal also includes two appendices:
1. Appendix A provides an overview of the Compliance Review process; and
2. Appendix B provides a glossary of terms.
The following provides a section by section highlight of changes presented in the proposed Policy Statements.
The ASC proposes to expand the introduction to include the monitoring of States that elect to register and supervise the operations and activities of AMCs, and to include an explanation of the proposed Policy Statements' three parts and appendices.
The ASC proposes to modify Policy Statement 1 to include a definition of trainee appraiser to better reflect how changes to Title XI affect Appraiser Programs with trainee requirements.
The ASC proposes to modify Policy Statement 2 to clarify requirements for temporary practice and includes requirements to track temporary practice permits and maintain documentation.
The ASC proposes to modify Policy Statement 3 to clarify requirements regarding States' submission of registry fees and eligibility of appraisers for the Appraiser Registry.
Technical edits for clarification were made to Policy Statement 3 since the initial publication. The
The ASC proposes to modify Policy Statement 4 to include additional guidance to States implementing AQB Criteria regarding the background of applicants for credentials and requires States to document applicant files with evidence supporting decisions made regarding individual appraisers. Policy Statement 4 as proposed also provides additional guidance on requirements for States to validate renewal requirements for appraisers and provides parameters for auditing education-related affidavits. Finally, Policy Statement 4 as proposed clarifies the requirement that States engage analysts who are knowledgeable about the
Technical edits for clarification were made to Policy Statement 4 since the initial publication. The section titled
The ASC proposes to modify Policy Statement 5 to include a requirement that States obtain and maintain sufficient relevant documentation pertaining to an application for issuance of a credential by reciprocity.
The ASC proposes to modify Policy Statement 6 to clarify that States may not continue to accept AQB approved courses after the AQB's expiration date unless the course content is reviewed and approved by the State.
The ASC proposes to modify Policy Statement 7 to clarify the requirement that States consider USPAP violations when investigating a complaint whether or not USPAP violations were the basis for the complaint.
Technical edits for clarification were made to Policy Statement 7 since the initial publication. A footnote was added to clarify that the one-year period for resolution of complaints is not intended to have the impact of a statute of limitation.
As proposed, Policy Statements 8, 9 & 10 duplicate the provisions of Policy Statements 1, 3 & 7 to every extent possible. The standard language is intentional and will create better understanding of the Policy Statements by the States as they will be able to anticipate how to comply based on their understanding of the Policy Statements they have been following. Differences are discussed below.
The ASC proposes a new Policy Statement 8 to reflect the statutory provision that States are not required to establish an AMC Program, but clarify for those States that establish AMC
The ASC proposes a new Policy Statement 9 to clarify requirements for States with an AMC Program to maintain the AMC Registry in the same way they maintain the Appraiser Registry.
Technical edits for clarification were made to Policy Statement 9 since the initial publication. The
The ASC proposes a new Policy Statement 10 to clarify requirements for States' AMC enforcement programs in those States with an AMC Program.
The ASC proposes a new Policy Statement 11 to clarify the statutory implementation period and any extensions that may be granted.
The ASC proposes a new Policy Statement 12 which modifies existing Policy Statement 8 to clarify interim sanctions which may be imposed on State Programs when those programs fail to be effective. The proposed procedures include due process provisions and rules of evidence, and would establish timeliness for proceedings.
The ASC seeks comment on all aspects of the proposed Policy Statements. In addition, the ASC requests comments on whether the proposed Policy Statements provide State Programs with the necessary information to understand the ASC's expectations during a Compliance Review.
The text of the proposed Policy Statements is as follows:
Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 as amended (Title XI) established the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (ASC).
Pursuant to Title XI, one of the ASC's core functions is to monitor the requirements established by the States
The ASC performs periodic Compliance Reviews
AMC Rule.
The ASC is issuing these revised Policy Statements
➢ Part A,
➢ Part B,
➢ Part C,
Title XI requires the ASC to monitor each State appraiser certifying and licensing agency for the purpose of determining whether each such agency has in place policies, practices and procedures consistent with the requirements of Title XI.
States should maintain an organizational structure for appraiser certification, licensing and supervision that avoids conflicts of interest. A State agency may be headed by a board, commission or an individual. State board
The Dodd-Frank Act amended Title XI to require the ASC to determine whether States have sufficient funding and staffing to meet their Title XI requirements. Compliance with this provision requires that a State must provide its Appraiser Program with funding and staffing sufficient to carry out its Title XI-related duties. The ASC evaluates the sufficiency of funding and staffing as part of its review of all aspects of an Appraiser Program's effectiveness, including the adequacy of State boards, committees, or commissions responsible for carrying out Title XI-related duties.
Title XI requires States to adopt and/or implement all relevant AQB Criteria. Requirements established by a State for certified residential or certified general appraisers, as well as requirements established for licensed appraisers, trainee appraisers and supervisory appraisers must meet or exceed applicable AQB Criteria.
“State certified appraisers” means those individuals who have satisfied the requirements for residential or general certification in a State whose criteria for certification meet or exceed the applicable minimum AQB Criteria. Permitted scope of practice and designation for State certified residential or certified general appraisers must be consistent with State and Federal laws, including regulations and supplementary guidance.
“State licensed appraisers” means those individuals who have satisfied the requirements for licensing in a State whose criteria for licensing meet or exceed the applicable minimum AQB Criteria. The permitted scope of practice and designation for State licensed appraisers must be consistent with State and Federal laws, including regulations and supplementary guidance.
“Trainee appraisers” means those individuals who have satisfied the requirements for credentialing in a State whose criteria for credentialing meet or exceed the applicable minimum AQB Criteria. Any minimum qualification requirements established by a State for individuals in the position of “trainee appraiser” or “supervisory appraiser” must meet or exceed the applicable minimum AQB Criteria. ASC staff will evaluate State designations such as “registered appraiser,” “apprentice appraiser,” “provisional appraiser,” or any other similar designation to determine if, in substance, such designation is consistent with a “trainee appraiser” designation and, therefore, administered to comply with Title XI. The permitted scope of practice and designation for trainee appraisers must be consistent with State and Federal laws, including regulations and supplementary guidance.
Any State or Federal agency may impose additional appraiser qualification requirements for trainee, State licensed, certified residential or
States using non-federally recognized credentials or designations
Title XI and the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies' regulations mandate that all appraisals performed in connection with federally related transactions be in written form, prepared in accordance with generally accepted appraisal standards as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and be subject to appropriate review for compliance with USPAP.
Any State or Federal agency may impose additional appraisal standards if they consider such standards necessary to carry out their responsibilities, so long as additional appraisal standards do not preclude compliance with USPAP or the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies' appraisal regulations for work performed for federally related transactions.
The Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies' appraisal regulations define “appraisal” and identify which real estate-related financial transactions require the services of a State certified or licensed appraiser. These regulations define “appraisal” as a “written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion as to the market value of an adequately described property as of a specific date(s) supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information.” Per these regulations, an appraiser performing an appraisal review which includes the reviewer providing his or her own opinion of value constitutes an appraisal. Under these same regulations, an appraisal review that does not include the reviewer providing his or her own opinion of value does not constitute an appraisal. Therefore, under the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies' regulations, only those transactions that involve appraisals for federally related transactions require the services of a State certified or licensed appraiser.
Title XI and the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies' regulations specifically require the use of State certified or licensed appraisers in connection with the appraisal of certain real estate-related financial transactions.
The efficacy of the ASC's Compliance Review process rests on the ASC's ability to obtain reliable information about all areas of a State's Appraiser Program. ASC staff regularly attends open State board meetings as part of the on-site Compliance Review process. States are expected to make available for review by ASC staff minutes of closed meetings and executive sessions. States are encouraged to allow ASC staff to attend closed and executive sessions of State board meetings where such attendance would not violate State law or regulation or be inconsistent with other legal obligations of the State board. ASC staff is obligated to protect information obtained during the Compliance Review process concerning the privacy of individuals and any confidential matters.
1. States must require that appraisals be performed in accordance with the latest version of USPAP.
2. States must, at a minimum, adopt and/or implement all relevant AQB Criteria.
3. States must have policies, practices and procedures consistent with Title XI.
4. States must have funding and staffing sufficient to carry out their Title XI-related duties.
5. States must use proper designations and permitted scope of practice for certified residential; certified general; licensed; and trainee classifications.
6. State board members, and any persons in policy or decision-making positions, must perform their responsibilities consistent with Title XI.
7. States' certification and licensing requirements must meet the minimum requirements set forth in Title XI.
8. State requirements for trainee appraisers and supervisory appraisers must meet or exceed the AQB Criteria.
9. State agencies must be granted adequate authority by the State to maintain an effective regulatory Appraiser Program in compliance with Title XI.
Title XI requires State agencies to recognize, on a temporary basis, the certification or license of an out-of-State appraiser entering the State for the purpose of completing an appraisal assignment
Title XI prohibits States from imposing excessive fees or burdensome requirements, as determined by the ASC, for temporary practice.
a. Issue temporary practice permits on an assignment basis;
b. issue temporary practice permits within five business days of receipt of a completed application, or notify the applicant and document the file as to the circumstances justifying delay or other action;
c. issue temporary practice permits designating the permit's effective date;
d. take regulatory responsibility for a temporary practitioner's unethical, incompetent and/or fraudulent practices performed while in the State;
e. notify the appraiser's home State agency
f. allow at least one temporary practice permit extension through a streamlined process;
g. track all temporary practice permits using a permit log which includes the name of the applicant, date application received, date completed application received, date of issuance, and date of expiration, if any (States are strongly encouraged to maintain this information in an electronic, sortable format); and
h. maintain documentation sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this Policy Statement.
a. Limit the valid time period of a temporary practice permit to less than 6 months (unless the applicant requests a specific end date and the applicant is allowed an extension if required to complete the assignment, the applicant's credential is no longer in active status during that period of time);
b. limit an appraiser to one temporary practice permit per calendar year;
c. charge a temporary practice permit fee exceeding $250, including one extension fee;
d. impose State appraiser qualification requirements for education, experience and/or exam upon temporary practitioners;
e. require temporary practitioners to obtain a certification or license in the State of temporary practice;
f. require temporary practitioners to affiliate with an in-State licensed or certified appraiser;
g. refuse to register licensed or certified appraisers seeking temporary practice in a State that does not have a licensed or certified level credential; or
h. prohibit temporary practice.
a. Delay the issuance of a written “letter of good standing” or similar document for more than five business days after receipt of a request; or
b. fail to consider and, if appropriate, take disciplinary action when one of its certified or licensed appraisers is disciplined by another State.
1. States must recognize, on a temporary basis, appraiser credentials issued by another State if the property to be appraised is part of a federally related transaction.
2. State agencies must adhere to mandates and prohibitions as determined by the ASC that deter the imposition of excessive fees or burdensome requirements for temporary practice.
Title XI requires the ASC to maintain a National Registry of State certified and licensed appraisers who are eligible to perform appraisals in federally related transactions (Appraiser Registry).
Roster and registry fee requirements apply to all individuals who receive State certifications or licenses, originally or by reciprocity, whether or not the individuals are, in fact, performing or planning to perform appraisals in federally related transactions. If an appraiser is certified or licensed in more than one State, the appraiser is required to be on each State's roster of certified or licensed appraisers, and a registry fee is due from each State in which the appraiser is certified or licensed.
Only AQB-compliant certified and licensed appraisers in active status on the Appraiser Registry are eligible to perform appraisals in connection with federally related transactions. Only those appraisers whose registry fees have been transmitted to the ASC will be eligible to be on the Appraiser Registry for the period subsequent to payment of the fee.
Some States may give State certified or licensed appraisers an option to not pay the registry fee. If a State certified or licensed appraiser chooses not to pay the registry fee, then the Appraiser Program must ensure that any potential user of that appraiser's services is aware that the appraiser is not eligible to perform appraisals for federally related transactions. The Appraiser Program must place a conspicuous notice directly on the face of any evidence of the appraiser's authority to appraise
The ASC extranet application allows States to update their appraiser credential information directly to the Appraiser Registry. Only Authorized Registry Officials are allowed to request access for their State personnel (see section C below). The ASC will issue a User Name and Password to the designated State personnel responsible for that State's Appraiser Registry entries. Designated State personnel are required to protect the right of access, and not share their User Name or Password with anyone. States must adopt and implement a written policy to protect the right of access, as well as the ASC issued User Name and Password. The ASC will provide detailed specifications regarding the data elements on the Appraiser Registry.
Each State must remit to the ASC the annual registry fee, as set by the ASC, for State certified or licensed appraisers within the State to be listed on the Appraiser Registry. Requests to prorate refunds or partial-year registrations will not be granted. If a State collects multiple-year fees for multiple-year certifications or licenses, the State may choose to remit to the ASC the total amount of the multiple-year registry fees or the equivalent annual fee amount. The ASC will, however, record appraisers on the Appraiser Registry only for the number of years for which the ASC has received payment. Nonpayment by a State of an appraiser's registry fee may result in the status of that appraiser being listed as “inactive.” States must reconcile and pay registry invoices in a timely manner (45 calendar days after the invoice date). When a State's failure to pay a past due invoice results in appraisers being listed as inactive, the ASC will not change those appraisers back to active status until payment is received from the State. An inactive status on the Appraiser Registry, for whatever the reason, renders an appraiser ineligible to perform appraisals in connection with federally related transactions.
The ASC Web site provides free access to the public portion of the Appraiser Registry at
Access to the full database, which includes non-public data (
Information sharing (routine exchange of certain information among lenders, governmental entities, State agencies and the ASC) is essential for carrying out the purposes of Title XI. Title XI requires the ASC, any other Federal agency or instrumentality, or any federally recognized entity to report any action of a State certified or licensed appraiser that is contrary to the purposes of Title XI to the appropriate State agency for disposition. The ASC believes that full implementation of this Title XI requirement is vital to the integrity of the system of State appraiser regulation. States are encouraged to develop and maintain procedures for sharing of information among themselves.
The Appraiser Registry's value and usefulness are largely dependent on the quality and frequency of State data submissions. Accurate and frequent data submissions from all States are necessary to maintain an up-to-date Appraiser Registry. States must submit appraiser data in a secure format to the ASC at least monthly. If there are no changes to the data, the State agency must notify the ASC of that fact in writing. States are encouraged to submit data as frequently as possible.
States must report all disciplinary action
For the most serious disciplinary actions (
Title XI also contemplates the reasonably free movement of certified and licensed appraisers across State lines. This freedom of movement assumes, however, that certified and licensed appraisers are, in all cases, held accountable and responsible for their actions while performing appraisal activities.
1. States must reconcile and pay registry invoices in a timely manner (45 calendar days after the invoice date).
2. States must report all disciplinary action taken against an appraiser to the ASC via the extranet application within 5 business days after the disciplinary action is final, as determined by State law.
3. States not reporting via the extranet application must provide, in writing to the ASC, a description of the circumstances preventing compliance with this requirement.
4. For the most serious disciplinary actions (
5. States must designate a senior official, such as an executive director, who will serve as the State's Authorized Registry Official, and provide to the ASC, in writing, information regarding the selected Authorized Registry Official, and any individual(s) authorized to act on their behalf.
6. States must ensure that the authorization information provided to the ASC is updated and accurate.
7. States must adopt and implement a written policy to protect the right of access to the Appraiser Registry, as well as the ASC issued User Name and Password.
8. States must ensure the accuracy of all data submitted to the Appraiser Registry.
9. States must submit appraiser data (other than discipline) to the ASC at least monthly. If a State's data does not change during the month, the State agency must notify the ASC of that fact in writing.
10. If a State certified or licensed appraiser chooses not to pay the registry fee, the State must ensure that any potential user of that appraiser's services is aware that the appraiser's certificate or license is limited to performing appraisals only in connection with non-federally related transactions.
AQB Criteria sets forth the minimum education, experience and examination requirements applicable to all States for credentialing of real property appraisers (certified, licensed, trainee and supervisory). In the application process, States must, at a minimum, employ a reliable means of validating both education and experience credit claimed by applicants for credentialing.
States must process applications in a consistent, equitable and well-documented manner. Applications for credentialing should be timely processed by State agencies (within 90 calendar days after receipt of a completed application). Any delay in the processing of applications must be sufficiently documented in the file to explain the delay. States must ensure appraiser credential applications submitted for processing do not contain invalid examinations as established by AQB Criteria.
States must obtain and maintain sufficient relevant documentation pertaining to an application for issuance, upgrade and renewal of a credential so as to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations. Documentation must include:
1. Application receipt date;
2. Education;
3. Experience;
4. Examination;
5. Continuing education; and
6. Any administrative or disciplinary action taken in connection with the application process, including results of any continuing education audit.
(1) The applicant's claimed education courses are acceptable under AQB Criteria; and
(2) the applicant has successfully completed courses consistent with AQB Criteria for the appraiser credential sought.
States may not accept an affidavit for claimed qualifying education from applicants for any federally recognized credential.
(1) The applicant's claimed continuing education courses are acceptable under AQB Criteria; and
(2) the applicant has successfully completed all continuing education consistent with AQB Criteria for reinstatement of the appraiser credential sought.
States may not accept an affidavit for continuing education claimed from applicants for reinstatement. Applicants for reinstatement must submit documentation to support claimed continuing education and States must maintain adequate documentation to support verification of claimed education.
States must ensure that continuing education courses for renewal of an appraiser credential are consistent with AQB Criteria and that continuing education hours required for renewal of an appraiser credential were completed consistent with AQB Criteria. States may accept affidavits for continuing education credit claimed for credential renewal so long as the State implements a reliable validation procedure that adheres to the following objectives and requirements:
The State's validation procedures must be structured to permit acceptable projections of the sample results to the entire population of subject appraisers. Therefore, the sample must include an adequate number of affidavits selected from each federally recognized credential level to have a reasonable chance of identifying appraisers who fail to comply with AQB Criteria, and the sample must include a statistically relevant representation of the appraiser population being sampled.
(1) Validation must include a prompt post-approval audit. Each audit of an affidavit for continuing education credit claimed must be completed within 60 business days from the date the credential is scheduled for renewal (based on the credential's expiration date). To ensure the audit is a statistically relevant representation, a sampling of credentials that were renewed after the scheduled expiration date and/or beyond the date the sample was selected, must also be audited to ensure that a credential holder may not avoid being selected for a continuing education audit by renewing early or late.
(2) States must audit the continuing education-related affidavit for each credentialed appraiser selected in the sampling procedure.
(3) States must determine that education courses claimed conform to AQB Criteria and that the appraiser successfully completed each course.
(4) When a State determines that an appraiser's continuing education does not meet AQB Criteria, and the appraiser has failed to complete any remedial action offered, the State must take appropriate action to suspend the appraiser's eligibility to perform appraisals in federally related transactions until such time that the requisite continuing education has been completed. The State must notify the ASC within five (5) business days after taking such action in order for the appraiser's record on the Appraiser Registry to be updated appropriately.
(5) If a State determines that a renewal applicant knowingly falsely attested to completing the continuing education
(6) If more than ten percent of the audited appraisers fail to meet the AQB Criteria, the State must take remedial action
(1) A State may conduct an additional audit using a higher percentage of audited appraisers; or
(2) a State may publicly post action taken to sanction non-compliant appraisers to increase awareness in the appraiser community of the importance of compliance with continuing education requirements.
(7) In the case of a renewal being processed after the credential's expiration date, but within the State's allowed grace period for a late renewal, the State must establish a reliable process to audit affidavits for continuing education (
States must maintain adequate documentation to support its affidavit renewal and audit procedures and actions.
To promote accountability, the ASC encourages States accepting affidavits for continuing education credit claimed for credential renewal to require that the appraiser provide a list of courses to support the affidavit.
States must ensure that appraiser experience logs conform to AQB Criteria. States may not accept an affidavit for experience credit claimed by applicants for any federally recognized credential.
States must implement a reliable validation procedure to verify that each applicant's experience meets AQB Criteria, including but not limited to, being USPAP compliant and containing the required number of hours and months.
States must determine the hours and time period claimed on the experience log are accurate. Appraiser Program staff or State board members must select the work product to validate the experience hours claimed; applicants may not have any role in this selection process.
States must analyze a representative sample of the applicant's work product for compliance with USPAP. For appraisal experience to be acceptable under AQB Criteria, it must be USPAP compliant. States must exercise due diligence in determining whether submitted documentation of experience or work product demonstrates compliance with USPAP. Persons analyzing work product for USPAP compliance must be knowledgeable about appraisal practice and USPAP, and States must be able to document how such persons are so qualified.
Experience time periods must conform to requirements set forth in the AQB Criteria for the credential sought.
States must maintain adequate documentation to support validation methods. The applicant's file, either electronic or paper, must include the information necessary to identify each appraisal assignment selected to validate the experience hours claimed and each appraisal assignment analyzed by the State for USPAP compliance, notes, letters and/or reports prepared by the official(s) evaluating the report for USPAP compliance, and any correspondence exchanged with the applicant regarding the appraisals submitted. This supporting documentation may be discarded upon the completion of the first ASC Compliance Review performed after the credential issuance or denial for that applicant.
States must ensure that an appropriate AQB-approved qualifying examination is administered for each of the federally recognized appraiser classifications requiring an examination.
1. States must process applications in a consistent, equitable and well-documented manner.
2. States must ensure appraiser credential applications submitted for processing do not contain invalid examinations as established by AQB Criteria.
3. States must obtain and maintain sufficient relevant documentation pertaining to an application for issuance, upgrade or renewal of a credential so as to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations.
1. States must verify that the applicant's claimed education courses are acceptable under AQB Criteria, whether for initial credentialing, renewal, upgrade or reinstatement.
2. States must verify that the applicant has successfully completed courses consistent with AQB Criteria for the appraiser credential sought, whether for initial credentialing, renewal, upgrade or reinstatement.
3. States must maintain adequate documentation to support verification.
4. States may not accept an affidavit for education claimed from applicants for any federally recognized credential.
5. States may not accept an affidavit for continuing education claimed from applicants for reinstatement.
6. States may accept affidavits for continuing education credit claimed for credential renewal so long as the State implements a reliable validation procedure.
7. Audits of affidavits for continuing education credit claimed must be completed within sixty (60) business days from the date the credential is scheduled for renewal (based on the credential's expiration date).
8. In the case of a renewal being processed after the credential's
9. States are required to take remedial action when it is determined that more than ten percent of audited appraiser's affidavits for continuing education credit claimed fail to meet the minimum AQB Criteria.
10. States are required to take appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary action when it is determined that an applicant knowingly falsely attested to completing continuing education.
11. When a State determines that an appraiser's continuing education does not meet AQB Criteria, and the appraiser has failed to complete any remedial action offered, the State must take appropriate action to suspend the appraiser's eligibility to perform appraisals in federally related transactions until such time that the requisite continuing education has been completed. The State must notify the ASC within five (5) business days after taking such action in order for the appraiser's record on the Appraiser Registry to be updated appropriately.
1. States may not accept an affidavit for experience credit claimed from applicants for any federally recognized credential.
2. States must ensure that appraiser experience logs conform to AQB Criteria.
3. States must use a reliable means of validating appraiser experience claims on all initial or upgrade applications for appraiser credentialing.
4. States must select the work product to validate the experience hours claimed on all initial or upgrade applications for appraiser credentialing.
5. States must analyze a representative sample of the applicant's work product for compliance with USPAP on all initial or upgrade applications for appraiser credentialing.
6. States must exercise due diligence in determining whether submitted documentation of experience or work product demonstrates compliance with USPAP on all initial or upgrade applications for appraiser credentialing.
7. Persons analyzing work product for USPAP compliance must be knowledgeable about appraisal practice and USPAP, and States must be able to document how such persons are so qualified.
8. Experience time periods must conform to requirements set forth in the AQB Criteria for the credential sought.
1. States must ensure that an appropriate AQB-approved qualifying examination is administered for each of the federally recognized credentials requiring an examination.
Title XI contemplates the reasonably free movement of certified and licensed appraisers across State lines. The ASC monitors Appraiser Programs for compliance with the reciprocity provision of Title XI as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.
a. The appraiser is coming from a State (Home State) that is “in compliance” with Title XI as determined by the ASC; AND
b. (i) the appraiser holds a valid credential from the Home State; AND
(ii) the credentialing requirements of the Home State
An appraiser relying on a credential from a State that does not have such a policy in place may not perform appraisals for federally related transactions. A State may be more lenient in the issuance of reciprocal credentials by implementing a more open door policy. However, States cannot impose additional impediments to obtaining reciprocal credentials.
For purposes of implementing the reciprocity policy, States with an ASC Finding
The following examples illustrate application of reciprocity in a manner that complies with Title XI. The examples refer to the reciprocity policy requiring issuance of a reciprocal credential IF:
a. The appraiser is coming from a State that is “in compliance”; AND
b. (i) the appraiser holds a valid credential from that State; AND
(ii) the credentialing requirements of that State (as they currently exist) meet or exceed those of the reciprocal credentialing State (as they currently exist).
State A requires that prior to issuing a reciprocal credential the applicant must certify that disciplinary proceedings are not pending against that applicant in any jurisdiction. Under b.(ii) above, if this requirement is not imposed on all of its own applicants for credentialing, STATE A cannot impose this requirement on applicants for reciprocal credentialing.
An appraiser is seeking a reciprocal credential in STATE A. The appraiser holds a valid credential in STATE Z, even though it was issued in 2007. This satisfies b.(i) above. However, in order to satisfy b.(ii), STATE A would evaluate STATE Z's credentialing requirements as they currently exist to determine whether they meet or exceed STATE A's current requirements for credentialing.
An appraiser credentialed in several States is seeking a reciprocal credential in State A. That appraiser's initial credentials were obtained through examination in the original credentialing State and through reciprocity in the additional States. State A requires the applicant to provide a “letter of good standing” from the State of original credentialing as a condition of granting a reciprocal credential. State A may not impose such a requirement since Title XI does not
In order to maintain a credential granted by reciprocity, appraisers must comply with the credentialing State's policies, rules and statutes governing appraisers, including requirements for payment of certification and licensing fees, as well as continuing education.
States must obtain and maintain sufficient relevant documentation pertaining to an application for issuance of a credential by reciprocity so as to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations.
1. States must have a reciprocity policy in place for issuing a reciprocal credential to an appraiser from another State under the conditions specified in Title XI in order for the State's appraisers to be eligible to perform appraisals for federally related transactions.
2. States may be more lenient in the issuance of reciprocal credentials by implementing a more open door policy; however, States may not impose additional impediments to issuance of reciprocal credentials.
3. States must obtain and maintain sufficient relevant documentation pertaining to an application for issuance of a credential by reciprocity so as to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations.
AQB Criteria sets forth minimum requirements for appraiser education courses. This Policy Statement addresses proper administration of education requirements for compliance with AQB Criteria. (For requirements concerning qualifying and continuing education in the application process, see Policy Statement 4,
States must ensure that approved appraiser education courses are consistent with AQB Criteria and maintain sufficient documentation to support that approved appraiser education courses conform to AQB Criteria.
States should ensure that course approval expiration dates assigned by the State coincide with the endorsement period assigned by the AQB's Course Approval Program or any other AQB-approved organization providing approval of course design and delivery. States may not continue to accept AQB approved courses after the AQB's expiration date unless the course content is reviewed and approved by the State.
States should ensure that educational providers are afforded equal treatment in all respects.
(1) Consent agreements requiring additional education should not specify a particular course provider when there are other providers on the State's approved course listing offering the same course; and
(2) courses from professional organizations should not be automatically approved and/or approved in a manner that is less burdensome than the State's normal approval process.
States are encouraged to accept courses approved by the AQB's Course Approval Program.
States must ensure that distance education courses meet AQB Criteria and that the delivery mechanism for distance education courses offered by a non-academic provider, including secondary providers, has been approved by an AQB-approved organization providing approval of course design and delivery.
States may not continue to accept courses after the AQB-approved organization's approval of course design and delivery date has expired.
1. States must ensure that appraiser education courses are consistent with AQB Criteria.
2. States must maintain sufficient documentation to support that approved appraiser courses conform to AQB Criteria.
3. States must ensure the delivery mechanism for distance education courses offered by a non-academic provider, including secondary providers, has been approved by an AQB-approved organization providing approval of course design and delivery.
Title XI requires the ASC to monitor the States for the purpose of determining whether the State processes complaints and completes investigations in a reasonable time period, appropriately disciplines sanctioned appraisers and maintains an effective regulatory program.
States must ensure that the system for processing and investigating complaints
States must process complaints of appraiser misconduct or wrongdoing in a timely manner to ensure effective supervision of appraisers, and when appropriate, that incompetent or unethical appraisers are not allowed to continue their appraisal practice. Absent special documented circumstances, final administrative decisions regarding complaints must occur within one year (12 months) of the complaint filing date.
Effective enforcement requires that States investigate allegations of appraiser misconduct or wrongdoing, and if allegations are proven, take appropriate disciplinary or remedial action. Dismissal of an alleged violation solely due to an “absence of harm to the public” is inconsistent with Title XI. Financial loss or the lack thereof is not an element in determining whether there is a violation. The extent of such loss, however, may be a factor in determining the appropriate level of discipline.
Persons analyzing complaints for USPAP compliance must be knowledgeable about appraisal practice and USPAP and States must be able to document how such persons are so qualified.
States must analyze each complaint to determine whether additional violations, especially those relating to USPAP, should be added to the complaint.
Closure of a complaint based solely on a State's statute of limitations that results in dismissal of a complaint without the investigation of the merits of the complaint is inconsistent with the Title XI requirement that States assure effective supervision of the activities of credentialed appraisers.
Absent specific documented facts or considerations, substantially similar cases within a State should result in similar dispositions.
States must obtain and maintain sufficient relevant documentation pertaining to a matter so as to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations.
Complaint files must:
• Include documentation outlining the progress of the investigation;
• demonstrate that appraisal reports are analyzed and any USPAP violations are identified and considered, whether or not they were the subject of the complaint;
• include rationale for the final outcome of the case (
• include documentation explaining any delay in processing, investigation or adjudication;
• contain documentation that all ordered or agreed upon discipline, such as probation, fine, or completion of education is tracked and that completion of all terms is confirmed; and
• be organized in a manner that allows understanding of the steps taken throughout the complaint, investigation, and adjudicatory process.
States must track all complaints using a complaint log. The complaint log must record all complaints, regardless of their procedural status in the investigation and/or resolution process, including complaints pending before the State board, Office of the Attorney General, other law enforcement agencies, and/or offices of administrative hearings.
The complaint log must include the following information (States are strongly encouraged to maintain this information in an electronic, sortable format):
1. States must maintain relevant documentation to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations.
2. States must resolve all complaints filed against appraisers within one year (12 months) of the complaint filing date, except for special documented circumstances.
3. States must ensure that the system for processing and investigating complaints and sanctioning appraisers is administered in an effective, consistent, equitable, and well-documented manner.
4. States must track complaints of alleged appraiser misconduct or wrongdoing using a complaint log.
5. States must appropriately document enforcement files and include rationale.
6. States must regulate, supervise and discipline their credentialed appraisers.
States are not required to establish an AMC registration and supervision program. For those States electing to participate in the registration and supervision of AMCs (participating States), ASC staff will informally monitor the State's progress to implement the requirements of Title XI and the AMC Rule.
1. A State decides to be a participating State pursuant to the AMC Rule;
2. A State establishes an AMC program in accordance with the AMC Rule; and
3. A State begins reporting to the National Registry of AMCs (AMC Registry).
Formal ASC oversight will consist of evaluating AMC Programs in participating States during the Compliance Review process to determine compliance or lack thereof with Title XI, and to assess implementation of the minimum requirements for State registration and supervision of AMCs as established by
Participating States may establish requirements in addition to those in the AMC Rule.
Participating States may also have a more expansive definition of AMCs.
The Dodd-Frank Act amended Title XI to require the ASC to determine whether participating States have sufficient funding and staffing to meet their Title XI requirements. Compliance with this provision requires that a State must provide its AMC Program with funding and staffing sufficient to carry out its Title XI-related duties. The ASC evaluates the sufficiency of funding and staffing as part of its review of all aspects of an AMC Program's effectiveness, including the adequacy of State boards, committees, or commissions responsible for carrying out Title XI-related duties.
If a State chooses to participate in the registration and supervision of AMCs in accordance with the AMC Rule, the State will be required to comply with the minimum requirements set forth in the AMC Rule. States should refer to the AMC Rule for compliance requirements
(a) The AMC Rule includes requirements for participating States to establish and maintain within the State appraiser certifying and licensing agency an AMC Program with the legal authority and mechanisms to:
(1) Review and approve or deny AMC initial registration applications and/or renewals for registration;
(2) Examine records of AMCs and require AMCs to submit information;
(3) Verify that appraisers on AMCs' panels hold valid State credentials;
(4) Conduct investigations of AMCs to assess potential violations of appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders;
(5) Discipline, suspend, terminate, or deny renewal of the registration of an AMC that violates appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; and
(6) Report an AMC's violation of appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders, as well as disciplinary and enforcement actions and other relevant information about an AMC's operations, to the ASC.
(b) The AMC Rule includes requirements for participating States to impose requirements on AMCs that are not Federally regulated AMCs
(1) Register with and be subject to supervision by the State appraiser certifying and licensing agency;
(2) Engage only State-certified or State-licensed appraisers for federally related transactions in conformity with any federally related transaction regulations;
(3) Establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC, in engaging an appraiser, selects an appraiser who is independent of the transaction and who has the requisite education, expertise, and experience necessary to competently complete the appraisal assignment for the particular market and property type;
(4) Direct the appraiser to perform the assignment in accordance with USPAP; and
(5) Establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC conducts its appraisal management services in accordance with the requirements of section 129E(a) through (i) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1639e(a) through (i), and regulations thereunder.
An AMC subject to State registration shall not be registered by a State or included on the AMC Registry if such AMC, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, is owned by any person who has had an appraiser license or certificate refused, denied, cancelled, surrendered in lieu of revocation, or revoked in any State for a substantive cause,
An AMC shall not be registered by a State if any person that owns more than 10 percent of the AMC—
(1) Is determined by the State not to have good moral character; or
(2) Fails to submit to a background investigation carried out by the State.
A State's process for review could, for example, be by questionnaire, or affidavit, or background screening, or otherwise. The ASC would expect written documentation of the State's method of review and the result.
Participating States are not required to identify Federally regulated AMCs
A Federally regulated AMC shall not be included on the AMC Registry if such AMC, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, is owned by any person who
1. Participating States must establish and maintain an AMC Program with the legal authority and mechanisms consistent with the AMC Rule.
2. Participating States must impose requirements on AMCs consistent with the AMC Rule.
3. Participating States must enforce and document ownership limitations for State-registered AMCs.
4. Only those AMCs that meet the Federal definition of AMC will be eligible to be on the AMC Registry. Therefore, participating States that have a more expansive definition of AMCs than in the AMC Rule must ensure such non-Federally recognized AMCs are identified as such in the State database.
5. States must have funding and staffing sufficient to carry out their Title XI-related duties.
Title XI requires the ASC to maintain the AMC Registry of AMCs that are either registered with and subject to supervision of a participating State or are operating subsidiaries of a Federally regulated financial institution.
As with appraiser registry fees, Title XI, § 1109(a)(4)(b) requires the AMC registry fee to be collected by each participating State and transmitted to the ASC. Therefore, as with appraisers, an AMC will pay a registry fee in each participating State in which the AMC operates. As with appraisers, an AMC operating in multiple participating States will pay a registry fee in multiple States in order to be on the AMC Registry for each State.
States must notify the ASC as soon as practicable if an AMC listed on the AMC Registry is no longer registered with or operating in the State. The ASC extranet application allows States to update their AMC information directly to the AMC Registry.
Each State must remit to the ASC the annual registry fee, as set by the ASC, for AMCs to be listed on the AMC Registry. Requests to prorate refunds or partial-year registrations will not be granted. If a State collects multiple-year fees for multiple-years, the State may choose to remit to the ASC the total amount of the multiple-year registry fees or the equivalent annual fee amount. The ASC will, however, record AMCs on the AMC Registry only for the number of years for which the ASC has received payment. States must reconcile and pay registry invoices in a timely manner (45 calendar days after receipt of the invoice).
State agencies must report all disciplinary action
The ASC Web site provides free access to the public portion of the AMC Registry at
Access to the full database, which includes non-public data (
1. States must reconcile and pay registry invoices in a timely manner (45 calendar days after receipt of the invoice).
2. State agencies must report all disciplinary action taken against an AMC to the ASC via the extranet application within 5 business days after the disciplinary action is final, as determined by State law.
3. States not reporting via the extranet application must provide, in writing to the ASC, a description of the circumstances preventing compliance with this requirement.
4. For the most serious disciplinary actions (
5. States must notify the ASC as soon as practicable if an AMC listed on the AMC Registry is no longer registered with or operating in the State.
6. States must designate a senior official, such as an executive director, who will serve as the State's Authorized Registry Official, and provide to the ASC, in writing, information regarding the selected Authorized Registry Official, and any individual(s) authorized to act on their behalf.
7. States must adopt and implement a written policy to protect the right of access to the AMC Registry, as well as the ASC issued User Name and Password.
8. States must ensure the accuracy of all data submitted to the AMC Registry.
Title XI requires the ASC to monitor the States for the purpose of determining whether the State processes complaints and completes investigations in a reasonable time period, appropriately disciplines sanctioned AMCs and maintains an effective regulatory program.
States must ensure that the system for processing and investigating complaints
States must process complaints against AMCs in a timely manner to ensure effective supervision of AMCs. Absent special documented circumstances, final administrative decisions regarding complaints must occur within one year (12 months) of the complaint filing date. Special documented circumstances are those extenuating circumstances (fully documented) beyond the control of the State agency that delays normal processing of a complaint such as: Complaints involving a criminal investigation by a law enforcement agency when the investigative agency requests that the State refrain from proceeding; final disposition that has been appealed to a higher court; documented medical condition of the respondent; ancillary civil litigation; and complex fraud cases that involve multiple individuals and reports. Such special documented circumstances also include those periods when State rules require referral of a complaint to another State entity for review and the State agency is precluded from further processing of the complaint until it is returned. In that circumstance, the State agency should document the required referral and the time period during which the complaint was not under its control or authority.
Effective enforcement requires that States investigate complaints, and if allegations are proven, take appropriate disciplinary or remedial action.
Absent specific documented facts or considerations, substantially similar cases within a State should result in similar dispositions.
States must obtain and maintain sufficient relevant documentation pertaining to a matter so as to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations.
Complaint files must:
• Include documentation outlining the progress of the investigation;
• include rationale for the final outcome of the case (
• include documentation explaining any delay in processing, investigation or adjudication;
• contain documentation that all ordered or agreed upon discipline is tracked and that completion of all terms is confirmed; and
• be organized in a manner that allows understanding of the steps taken throughout the complaint, investigation, and adjudicatory process.
States must track all complaints using a complaint log. The complaint log must record all complaints, regardless of their procedural status in the investigation and/or resolution process, including complaints pending before the State board, Office of the Attorney General, other law enforcement agencies, and/or offices of administrative hearings. The complaint log must include the following information (States are strongly encouraged to maintain this information in an electronic, sortable format):
1. States must maintain relevant documentation to enable understanding of the facts and determinations in the matter and the reasons for those determinations.
2. States must resolve all complaints filed against appraisers within one year (12 months) of the complaint filing date, except for special documented circumstances.
3. States must ensure that the system for processing and investigating complaints and sanctioning AMCs is administered in an effective, consistent, equitable, and well-documented manner.
4. States must track complaints of alleged appraiser misconduct or wrongdoing using a complaint log.
5. States must appropriately document enforcement files and include rationale.
Title XI and the AMC Rule set forth the statutory implementation period.
The ASC, with the approval of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), may extend this statutory implementation period for an additional 12 months if the ASC makes a finding that a State has made substantial progress toward implementing a registration and supervision program for AMCs that meets the standards of Title XI.
Title XI grants the ASC authority to impose sanctions on a State that fails to have an effective Appraiser or AMC Program.
The ASC shall provide the State agency with:
1. Written notice of intention to impose an interim sanction; and
2. opportunity to respond or to correct the conditions causing such notice to the State.
Notice and opportunity to respond or correct the conditions shall be in accordance with section C,
This section prescribes the ASC's procedures which will be followed in arriving at a decision by the ASC to impose an interim sanction against a State agency.
The ASC shall provide a written Notice of intention to impose an interim sanction (Notice) to the State agency. The Notice shall contain the ASC's analysis as required by Title XI of the State's licensing and certification of appraisers, the registration of AMCs, the issuance of temporary licenses and certifications for appraisers, the receiving and tracking of submitted complaints against appraisers and AMCs, the investigation of complaints, and enforcement actions against appraisers and AMCs.
Within 15 days of receipt of the Notice, the State may submit a response to the ASC's Executive Director. Alternatively, a State may submit a Notice Not to Contest with the ASC's Executive Director. The filing of a Notice Not to Contest shall not constitute a waiver of the right to a judicial review of the ASC's decision, findings and conclusions. Failure to file a Response within 15 days shall constitute authorization for the ASC to find the facts to be as presented in the Notice and analysis. The ASC, for good cause shown, may permit the filing of a Response after the prescribed time.
Within 45 days after the date of receipt by the State agency of the Notice as published in the
Within 45 days after the date of receipt by the State agency of the Notice as published in the
All aspects of the proceeding shall be conducted by written submissions, with the exception of oral presentations allowed under subsection 4 above.
An ASC member who deems himself or herself disqualified may at any time withdraw. Upon receipt of a timely and sufficient affidavit of personal bias or disqualification of such member, the ASC will rule on the matter as a part of the record.
The Chairperson of the ASC, in consultation with other members of the ASC whenever appropriate, shall have complete charge of the proceeding and shall have the duty to conduct it in a fair and impartial manner and to take all necessary action to avoid delay in the disposition of proceedings.
Except as is otherwise set forth in this section, relevant material and reliable evidence that is not unduly repetitive is admissible to the fullest extent authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) and other applicable law.
Within 90 days after the date of receipt by the State agency of the Notice as published in the
Time computation is based on business days. The date of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. The last day is included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, in which case the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday.
Unless otherwise provided by statute, all documents, papers and exhibits filed
A decision of the ASC under this section shall be subject to judicial review. The form of proceeding for judicial review may include any applicable form of legal action, including actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The ASC monitors State Appraiser and AMC Programs for compliance with Title XI. The monitoring of State Programs is largely accomplished through on-site visits known as a Compliance Review (Review). A Review is conducted over a two- to four-day period, and is scheduled to coincide with a meeting of the Program's decision-making body whenever possible. ASC staff reviews the Appraiser Program and the seven compliance areas addressed in Policy Statements 1 through 7. ASC staff reviews a participating State's AMC Program and the four compliance areas addressed in Policy Statements 8 through 11. Sufficient documentation demonstrating compliance must be maintained by a State and made available for inspection during the Review. ASC staff reviews a sampling of documentation in each of the compliance areas. The sampling is intended to be representative of a State Program in its entirety.
Based on the Review, ASC staff provides the State with an ASC staff report for the Appraiser Program, and if applicable, an ASC staff report for the AMC Program, detailing preliminary findings. The State is given 60 days to respond to the ASC staff report(s). At the conclusion of the Review, a Compliance Review Report (Report) is issued to the State for the Appraiser Program, and if applicable, a Report is also issued for the AMC Program, with the ASC Finding on each Program's overall compliance, or lack thereof, with Title XI. Deficiencies resulting in non-compliance in any of the compliance areas are cited in the Report. “Areas of Concern” which potentially expose a Program to compliance issues in the future are also addressed in the Report. The ASC's final disposition is based upon the ASC staff report, the State's response and staff's recommendation.
The following chart provides an explanation of the ASC Findings and rating criteria for each ASC Finding category. The ASC Finding places particular emphasis on whether the State is maintaining an effective regulatory Program in compliance with Title XI.
The
The ASC may conduct Follow-up Reviews and additional monitoring. A Follow-up Review focuses only on specific areas identified during the previous on-site Review. Follow-up Reviews usually occur within 6-12 months of the previous Review. In addition, as a risk management tool, ASC staff identifies State Programs that may have a significant impact on the nation's appraiser regulatory system in the event of Title XI compliance issues. For States that represent a significant percentage of the credentials on the Appraiser Registry, ASC staff performs annual on-site Priority Contact visits. The primary purpose of the Priority Contact visit is to review topical issues, evaluate regulatory compliance issues, and maintain a close working relationship with the State. This is not a complete Review of the Program. The ASC will also schedule a Priority Contact visit for a State when a specific concern is identified that requires special attention. Additional monitoring may be required where a deficiency is identified and reports on required or agreed upon corrective actions are required monthly or quarterly. Additional monitoring may include on-site monitoring as well as off-site monitoring.
Appraisal management company (AMC): Refers to, in connection with valuing properties collateralizing mortgage loans or mortgages incorporated into a securitization, any external third party authorized either by a creditor of a consumer credit transaction secured by a consumer's principal dwelling or by an underwriter of or other principal in the secondary mortgage markets, that oversees a network or panel of more than 15 certified or licensed appraisers in a State or 25 or more nationally within a given year—
(A) To recruit, select, and retain appraisers;
(B) to contract with licensed and certified appraisers to perform appraisal assignments;
(C) to manage the process of having an appraisal performed, including providing administrative duties such as receiving appraisal orders and appraisal reports, submitting completed appraisal reports to creditors and underwriters, collecting fees from creditors and underwriters for services provided, and reimbursing appraisers for services performed; or
(D) to review and verify the work of appraisers.
With the exception of voluntary surrender, suspension or revocation, such action may be exempt from reporting to the National Registry if defined by State statute, regulation or written policy as “non-disciplinary.”
(a) A federal financial institutions regulatory agency engages in, contracts for, or regulates; and
(b) requires the services of an appraiser. (See Title XI § 1121(4), 12 U.S.C. 3350.)
(a) the sale, lease, purchase, investment in or exchange of real property, including interests in property, or the financing thereof;
(b) the refinancing of real property or interests in real property; and
(c) the use of real property or interests in property as security for a loan or investment, including mortgage-backed securities. (
By the Appraisal Subcommittee.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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 a proposed information collection project titled “Effective Communication in Public Health Emergencies—Developing Community-Centered Tools for People with Special Health Care Needs.”
Written comments must be received on or before November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0071 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
Effective Communication in Public Health Emergencies—Developing Community-Centered Tools for People with Special Health Care Needs—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Individuals with access and mobility challenges, chronic illness, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and other communication difficulties require targeted messages before, during, and after disasters to ensure that they fully appreciate the risks to their health and safety and can take measures to avoid harm. Significant research has highlighted the unique information needs for at-risk populations in general, as well as more specific populations such as minority communities, limited-English proficiency communities, and persons with physical or communication disabilities. However, there has been minimal translation of this research into practical tools for sharing information, nor has the research been extended to the families of children and youth with special heath care needs.
Research has also shown that families and individuals are more likely to prepare for emergencies or follow health-related emergency directives when the information comes from a health care professional, particularly someone engaged in their care. There is very little information about the capacity of these trusted sources to reach at-risk individuals during disasters, or their coordination with government risk communication efforts.
Finally, although social media is used by at-risk populations on a daily basis, relatively little is known about how these populations use social media during disasters, as the majority of the studies analyzing channels used by at-risk populations were completed before the widespread use of social media in disasters.
This study will utilize a multi-tiered, mixed methods approach to data collection to study the communication needs of two target populations during disasters: Families with children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN); and individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders, as well as families with children who have Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Data collection will consist of surveys, as
The data resulting from this study will be used to develop specific tools, protocols, and message templates that can be used for communicating during emergencies and disasters with families with CYSHCN and ASD.
CDC plans to begin the information collection one month after OMB approval and continue for twenty two months. Information in identifiable form will not be linked to interview responses. No CDC staff will participate in the collection of data or otherwise have contact with the participants. Drexel will store all the data, and CDC will only receive coded and aggregated data so it will not be possible to link responses with individual subjects. Data will be treated in a secure manner and will not be disclosed, unless otherwise compelled by law.
The total estimated annualized time burden to respondents is 419 hours.
This information collection request is a new request and approval is requested for 24 months.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on May 30, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the first notice. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) (OMB No. 0920-0666), exp. 11/30/2019—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) is a system designed to accumulate, exchange, and integrate relevant information and resources among private and public stakeholders to support local and national efforts to protect patients and promote healthcare safety. Specifically, CDC uses the data to
The NHSN currently consists of five components: Patient Safety, Healthcare Personnel Safety, Biovigilance, Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF), and Dialysis. CDC will release the NHSN “Outpatient Procedure Component” in 2018. CDC's request for additional user feedback and support from outside partners delayed development of this component.
After receiving user feedback and internal review feedback, CDC made changes to six facility surveys. For the annual facility surveys, CDC amended, removed, or added questions and response options to fit the survey's evolving uses. In addition, CDC and its partners use the surveys to help intelligently interpret the other data elements reported into NHSN. Currently, the surveys are used to appropriately risk adjust the numerator and denominator data entered into NHSN while also guiding decisions on future division priorities for prevention.
Further, two new forms were added to expand NHSN surveillance to enhance data collection by Ambulatory Surgical Centers to identify areas where prevention of SSIs may be improved. CDC modified an additional 14 forms within the Hemovigilance module to streamline data collection/entry for adverse reaction events.
Overall, CDC has made minor revisions to a total of 44 forms within the package to clarify and/or update surveillance definitions, increase or decrease the number of reporting facilities, and adding 2 new forms. The previously approved NHSN information collection package included 70 individual collection forms; the current revision request includes 72 forms. The reporting burden will increase by 811,985 hours, for a total of 5,922,953 hours.
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 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) to collect information about individual's experiences of sexual violence, stalking and intimate partner violence and information about the health consequences of these forms of violence. CDC produces national and state level prevalence estimates of these types of violence.
Written comments must be received on or before November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0067 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) (OMB Control Number 0920-0822, Expiration 07/30/2018)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System (NISVSS) data from 2010-2012 show that approximately 44.9 million women and 35.2 million men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. The health care costs of IPV exceed $5.8 billion each year, nearly $3.9 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health care services. In order to address this important public health problem, CDC implemented, beginning in 2010, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System that produces national and state level estimates of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), Sexual Violence (SV) and stalking on an annual basis.
CDC seeks OMB approval for a three-year period. In this revision, CDC is requesting the continuation of data collection among non-institutionalized adult men and women aged 18 years or older in the United States assessing lifetime experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV), sexual violence (SV) and stalking with the version of the survey approved for the 2016-2017 data collection period, revised to remove questions for the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding the experiences of IPV, SV and stalking among active duty women and men in the military and wives of active duty men. These questions will not be a part of the next wave of data collection because this subsample data collection will be completed in 2017. The survey includes enhancements, already approved, that reduced instrument complexity in order to reduce respondent burden and make the data available to the public sooner in order to take action to prevent IPV, SV, and stalking. The periodicity of the administration of the NISVS instrument remains biennial. Biennial data collection was incorporated for previously approved data collections to increase the number of interviews.
To comply with OMB's terms of clearance for 2014 and 2016, CDC continues its collaboration with Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in convening a work group to obtain expert feedback and input on how to enhance the NISVS survey. Workgroup participants will provide guidance on how to improve the system's survey design (
NISVS is a dual-frame (landline and cell phone) random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey. Data are be analyzed using appropriate statistical software to account for the complexity of the survey design to compute weighted counts, percentages, confidence intervals using both national and state level data. The average burden per screened respondent remains at 3 minutes, while the average burden per surveyed respondent is 25 minutes. The survey will be conducted among English or Spanish speaking male and female adults (18 years and older) living in the United States.
The estimated annual burden hours are 22,700 with a decreased of 4,316, from 27,106 hours previously approved. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Zika Reproductive Health Call-Back Survey (ZRHCS), Puerto Rico, 2017—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In May 2015, the World Health Organization reported the first local mosquito born transmission of Zika virus in the Western Hemisphere, with autochthonous cases identified in Brazil. In response to the Zika virus outbreak, and evidence that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause microcephaly and other adverse pregnancy and infant outcomes, CDC activated its Emergency Operations Center to its highest level on February 8, 2016 and continues to engage in Zika virus operations.
To date, Puerto Rico has reported the highest number of Zika virus cases of any area within the United States, with the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDH) reporting more than 40,000 cases of Zika virus infection, including 3,757 cases in pregnant women. Given the adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy and the current lack of a vaccine, it is important for women who are at risk of becoming pregnant unintentionally, or who are planning a pregnancy, to be knowledgeable about the potential outcomes of Zika virus infection. In addition, it is important for them to practice effective pregnancy prevention behaviors when they do not desire pregnancy and to prevent mosquito-borne and sexual transmission of Zika virus.
This is a request for a new information collection. CDC requests one additional year of clearance to continue the Emergency information collection, “Emergency Zika Package: Zika Reproductive Health Survey, Puerto Rico, 2017,” approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in July 2017 (OMB Control Number 0920-1188).
The objective of this assessment is to collect current information on various aspects of Zika knowledge and prevention behaviors from a representative sample of adult women in Puerto Rico. Information will be collected on the following topics: (1) Knowledge of and adherence to mosquito prevention strategies, and (2) use of condoms to minimize the risk of sexual transmission of Zika, and (3) behaviors practiced by women who wish to avoid or delay pregnancies that help them prevent unintended pregnancies that might otherwise be affected by Zika. CDC will rapidly summarize and analyze the information collected for the Puerto Rico Department of Health to determine the need for further refinements in educational messaging and allocation of resources, as established during the first season of the Zika outbreak. There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate. The total estimated annual burden hours are 117.
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 reinstatement of the data collection project titled “Congenital Heart Surveillance to Recognize Outcomes, Needs and well-being (CHSTRONG).” CDC collects CHSTRONG data to provide public health question insight, aid in the development of services, and inform for the proper allocation of resources to improve long-term health and wellbeing.
Written comments must be received on or before November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0070 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
Congenital Heart Survey To Recognize Outcomes, Needs, and well-being (CH STRONG) (OMB Control Number: 0920-1122, Expiration 07/31/2017)—Reinstatement with change—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Congenital heart defects (CHDs) are the most common type of structural birth defects, affecting approximately 1 in 110 live-born children. In prior decades, many CHDs were considered fatal during infancy or childhood, but with tremendous advances in pediatric cardiology and cardiac surgery, at least 85% of patients now survive to adulthood and there are approximately 1.5 million adults with CHD living in the United States.
With vast declines in mortality from pediatric heart disease over the past 30 years, it is vital to evaluate long-term outcomes and quality of life issues for adults with CHD. However, U.S. data on long-term outcomes, quality of life issues, and comorbidities of adults born with CHD are lacking. U.S. data is needed to provide insight into the public health questions that remain for this population and to develop services and allocate resources to improve long-term health and wellbeing.
The initial request for this project was one year, but there was a delay in recruitment that results in a change in the recruitment process. Therefore, an additional 24 months is being requested. The three sites decided to conduct more intensive and time-consuming tracking and tracing to identify more accurate contact information for all eligible individuals. In addition to more intensive tracking and tracing, the sites decided to send recruitment materials in batches rather than all at once. This ensured that problems with the recruitment process were caught immediately and could be modified in subsequent rounds of recruitment. Due to these delays and changes in recruitment process, CH STRONG data collection is expected to last an additional 24 months and conclude two years after receiving an extension from OMB.
For this project, we will use data from U.S. state birth defect surveillance systems to identify a population-based sample of individuals 18 to 45 years of age born with CHD. We will then use an automated process of searching state databases and online search engines, as well as have individuals perform more time-intensive online searches to find current addresses for those eligible participants and mail surveys to them inquiring about their barriers to health care, quality of life, social and educational outcomes, and transition of care from childhood to adulthood. The information collected from this population-based survey will be used to inform current knowledge, allocate resources, develop services, and, ultimately, improve long-term health of adults born with CHD.
We estimate sending a survey to 4,183 individuals with CHD over a 2-year period, and receiving completed surveys from 2,928 individuals (70%). The survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. The contact information form takes approximately two minutes to complete. There are no costs to participants other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 711.
There are looming public health issues related to flooding, and especially among at risk populations. Risks include contracting water‐borne and vector‐borne diseases, substance abuse, and mental health concerns, including PTSD, depression, anxiety, and homelessness.
Therefore, it is essential for the mission of ACF to activate the Immediate Disaster Case Management (IDCM) Electronic Case Management Record System (ECMRS). The ECMRS will be used to collect and manage information from the disaster affected clients. This information includes demographics, disaster caused unmet needs, and referrals provided. The information collected is critical to develop a recovery plan for each survivor.
Comments and questions about the information collection described above should be directed to the following address by September 22, 2017. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Desk Officer for ACF.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Health Center Program Compliance Manual (Compliance Manual) has been developed as a comprehensive, significantly streamlined, and web-based guidance document to assist health centers in understanding and demonstrating compliance with Health Center Program requirements. As such, this guidance document will reduce burden for current and prospective health centers and look-alikes and further strengthen HRSA's oversight of the Health Center and Health Center Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Programs. It also responds to recommendations contained within the Government Accountability Office report,
The Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) released a draft Compliance Manual on August 23, 2016, for a 90-day public comment period. Individuals and groups submitted over 700 comments regarding the draft Compliance Manual. After thorough review and consideration of all comments received, HRSA made a substantial number of updates to the Compliance Manual to incorporate suggestions and requests for further clarification. HRSA has also posted a summary of comments for each corresponding section and chapter of the Compliance Manual and HRSA's responses to these comments. HRSA's “Summary of Comments and HRSA Responses on the Draft Health Center Program Compliance Manual” is available online at
For questions regarding this notice, contact HRSA/BPHC at
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866, emphasizing the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year), and a “significant” regulatory action is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, was issued on January 30, 2017. Section 2(a) of Executive Order 13771 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement, section 2(c) of Executive Order 13771 requires that the new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. OMB's interim guidance issued on February 2, 2017, explains that for fiscal year 2017 the above requirements only apply to each new “significant regulatory action that imposes costs.” It has been determined that the Compliance Manual is not a “significant regulatory action that imposes costs” and thus does not trigger the above requirements of Executive Order 12866 or of Executive Order 13771.
HRSA provides grants to eligible applicants under section 330(e), (g), (h), and/or (i) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b), to support the delivery of preventive and primary care services to medically underserved communities and vulnerable populations. Nearly 1,400 Health Center Program-funded health centers operate approximately 10,400 service delivery sites that provide care to nearly 26 million patients in every U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Basin. Note that for the purposes of the Compliance Manual, the term “health center” refers to entities that receive a federal award under section 330 of the PHS Act, as amended, grant subrecipients, and organizations designated as look-alikes, unless otherwise stated within the Compliance Manual. Look-alikes, as described in Sections 1861(aa)(4)(B) and 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(4)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 1396d(l)(2)(B)(iii)), do not receive a Health Center Program award but must meet the Health Center Program statutory and regulatory requirements. Organizations designated as look-alikes are eligible for payment as a Federally Qualified Health Center under Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as participation in the 340B Drug Pricing Program and the National Health Service Corps Program.
HRSA also makes determinations of deemed PHS employment status for health centers funded under section 330 (including subrecipients), which also extends to certain statutorily eligible “covered individuals,” for purposes of providing liability protections under the Health Center Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) Program. A favorable FTCA deeming determination requires approval by HRSA of an application submitted by the Health Center Program awardee in the form and manner specified by HRSA. Health centers may also sponsor individual health professional volunteers for such protections. Sections 224(g)-(n) and (q) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 233(g)-(n), and (q)) authorize the Health Center FTCA Program and afford eligibility for FTCA coverage as the exclusive civil remedy for acts or omissions arising within the scope of deemed federal employment in the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.
The Compliance Manual restates the Health Center Program's statutory and regulatory requirements and provides guidance on how health centers would demonstrate compliance with such requirements to HRSA. However, the Compliance Manual also allows health centers to submit alternative means of demonstrating compliance with the specified Health Center Program requirements. All means of demonstrating compliance are subject to HRSA review and approval.
Organizations receiving Health Center Program federal awards, including subrecipients, continue to be subject to all requirements incorporated within terms and conditions stated in Notices of Funding Opportunity, Notices of Award, and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, as well as the distinct statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements of other federal programs in which they participate.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 20, 2017.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0121 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2014-0008. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Inez C. Downs at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
Any person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice, or any person who believes that he or she will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur, may file a complaint with HUD not later than one year after the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurs or terminates. The Form promotes consistency in the collection of information necessary to contact persons who file housing discrimination complaints with HUD. It also aids in the collection of information necessary for initial assessments of HUD's authority to investigate alleged discriminatory housing practices under the Fair Housing Act. This information may subsequently be provided to persons against whom complaints are filed [“respondents”], as required under section 810(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Fair Housing Act.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806.
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
In signing on to The ConnectHome Challenge, a community is committing, among other things, to: (1) Establish (possibly in collaboration with their local knowledge institutions) baseline estimates of the percent of HUD-assisted households with in-home high-speed Internet that is not reliant on a smartphone; (2) collaborate with local stakeholders to establish performance targets for increasing in-home high-speed Internet adoption; (3) establish and share with HUD the local strategies for achieving in-home high-speed Internet adoption targets; and (4) develop and execute an implementation plan and share progress with HUD.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before October 20, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Joyce Russell, Government Information Specialist, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2023; facsimile 703-358-2280.
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to purchase in interstate commerce cell lines of gorilla (
The applicant requests renewal of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a permit to import scientific samples from captive-bred blue-throated macaw (
The applicant requests authorization to import 16 clouded leopards (
The applicant requests a renewal and amendment to a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for cheetah (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance species propagation or survival: Scimitar-horned oryx (
The following applicants each request a permit to import sport-hunted trophies of a male bontebok (
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
We will post all hardcopy comments on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos.
August 28, 2017.
Nathanael N. Comly (202) 205-3174, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-573-574 and 731-TA-1349-1358 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of wire rod from Belarus, Italy, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom, provided for in subheadings 7213.91.30, 7213.91.45, 7213.91.60, 7213.99.00, 7227.20.00, and 7227.90.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. The Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has preliminarily determined imports of wire rod to be subsidized by the governments of Italy and Turkey (82 FR 41931 and 82 FR 41929). Determinations with respect to imports of wire rod alleged to be sold at less than fair value are pending.
September 5, 2017.
Justin Enck ((202) 205-3363), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Cotton Babies, Inc. on September 14, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain reusable diapers, components thereof, and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondents Alvababy.com of China; Shenzhen Adsel Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a Alva of China; and Huizhou Huapin Garment Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general and/or limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3250”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
12:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2017.
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.
Closed.
Determination on FOUR original jurisdiction cases.
Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 346-7001.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Astrophysics Advisory Committee. This Committee reports to the Director, Astrophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, October 19, 2017, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 1-888-994-3814 or toll number 1-415-228-5004, passcode 1833244, to participate in this meeting by telephone on both days. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
The agenda will be posted on the Astrophysics Advisory Committee Web page:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 2 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Sherry P. Hale, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Intent to conduct scoping process and prepare environmental impact statement; public meeting and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a scoping process to gather the information necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the environmental impacts for renewal of the operating license for River Bend Station, Unit 1 (River Bend). The NRC is seeking stakeholder input on this action and has scheduled a public meeting.
Submit comments by October 23, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Meeting date: September 19, 2017, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., St. Francisville, LA.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Elaine Keegan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8517, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0141 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0141 in the subject line of your comment submission in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
By letter dated May 25, 2017, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted to the NRC an application for renewal of Facility Operating License NPF-47 for an additional 20 years of operation at River Bend, further supplemented by letter dated August 1, 2017. River Bend is located in St. Francisville, LA. The current operating license for River Bend expires on August 29, 2025. The application for renewal was submitted pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the
This notice informs the public of the NRC's intention to prepare an EIS related the license renewal application and to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process, as defined in 10 CFR 51.29.
The regulations in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act,” allows agencies to use their National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process to fulfill the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC intends to use its process and documentation for the preparation of the EIS on the proposed action to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth at 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.6.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 54.23, Entergy submitted the ER as part of the application. To complete the acceptance review of the license renewal application, the applicant provided additional supplemental information needed to support the staff's technical review of the proposed action (license renewal). The ER and supplemental information were prepared pursuant to 10 CFR part 51 and are publicly available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17156A093 and ML17213A064, respectively. The ER may also be viewed on the Internet at
The NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the NRC's “Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” (NUREG-1437) related to the application for renewal of the River Bend operating license for an additional 20 years.
Possible alternatives to the proposed action include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 to prepare a supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license. This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations found at 10 CFR part 51.
The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft supplement to the GEIS for public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS will be used to accomplish the following:
a. Define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS;
b. Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth;
c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral, are not significant, or were covered by a prior environmental review;
d. Identify any environmental assessments and other ElSs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS being considered;
e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action;
f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule;
g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies; and
h. Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.
The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping:
a. The applicant, Entergy;
b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;
c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards;
d. Any affected Indian tribe;
e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process; and
f. Any person who has petitioned or intends to petition for leave to intervene.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC has decided to hold a public meeting for the River Bend license renewal supplement to the GEIS. The scoping meeting will be held on September 19, 2017. The meeting will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Town Hall Meeting Room of the St. Francisville Town Hall, 11936 Ferdinand Street, St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775. There will be a registration period from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for members of the public to sign in to speak.
The meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS, and the
Members of the public may register to speak during the registration period prior to the start of the meeting. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. Public comments will be considered in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS.
Participation in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the supplement to the GEIS relates. Matters related to participation in any hearing are outside the scope of matters to be discussed at this public meeting.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on NuScale will hold a meeting on September 20, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review applicability of the AREVA fuel methodology to the NuScale design certification application. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff, NuScale staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Michael Snodderly (Telephone 301-415-2241 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
The Hispanic Council on Federal Employment (Council) meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at the following time and location shown below:
The Council is an advisory committee composed of representatives from Hispanic organizations and senior government officials. Along with its other responsibilities, the Council shall advise the Director of the Office of Personnel Management on matters involving the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of Hispanics in the Federal workforce. The Council is co-chaired by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Chair of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA).
The meeting is open to the public. Please contact the Office of Personnel Management at the address shown below if you wish to present material to the Council at any of the meetings. The manner and time prescribed for presentations may be limited, depending upon the number of parties that express interest in presenting information.
Zina Sutch, Director, for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW., Suite 5H35, Washington, DC 20415. Phone (202) 606-2433, Fax (202) 606-6012, or email at
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The September 21, 2017 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2017-199 and CP2017-302; MC2017-200 and CP2017-303; MC2017-201 and CP2017-304; MC2017-202 and CP2017-305). The September 22, 2017 comment due date applies to Docket No. CP2017-306.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a discount in the form of a cap on transaction fees for Market-Maker, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker, Professional/Voluntary Professional and Joint Back-Office executions in VIX.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a discount in the form of a cap on transaction fees for Market-Maker, Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker, Professional/Voluntary Professional and Joint Back-Office (
The Exchange proposes to adopt the VIX Large Trade Discount in order to incentivize the sending of large VIX orders. The greater liquidity and trading volume that the proposed cap encourages would benefit all market participants trading VIX options.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that adopting the VIX Large Trade Discount is reasonable because Market-Makers, Broker-Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professional/Voluntary Professionals and Joint Back-Offices participants (
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while the cap does not apply to Customers and Firms, other incentive programs already exist for those market participants with respect to VIX trading. Additionally, the proposed change is designed to encourage increased VIX options volume, which provides greater trading opportunities for all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because VIX is only traded on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE market participants.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 5, 2017
The Participants filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act
Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee of the Company (“Operating Committee”) has the discretion to establish funding for the Company to operate the CAT, including establishing fees that the Participants and Industry Members will pay (“CAT Fees”).
The proposals state that disputes initiated by an Industry Member with respect to CAT Fees charged to such Industry Member, including disputes related to the designated tier and the fee calculated pursuant to such tier, shall be resolved by the Operating Committee, or a Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee, pursuant to the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures adopted by the Operating Committee pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.
Under the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures, an Industry Member that disputes CAT Fees charged to such Industry Member and that desires to have an opportunity to be heard with respect to such disputed CAT Fees must file a written application with the Company within 15 business days after being notified of such disputed CAT Fees.
The Participants state that the Company will refer applications for hearing and review promptly to the Fee Review Subcommittee designated by the Operating Committee with responsibility for conducting the reviews of CAT Fee disputes pursuant to these Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures.
The proposals further specify that the Fee Review Subcommittee will hold hearings promptly and will set a hearing date.
The Participants state that the parties to the hearing will consist of the applicant and a representative of the Company who shall present the reasons for the action taken by the Company that allegedly aggrieved the applicant.
The proposals further indicate that the Fee Review Subcommittee will determine all questions concerning the admissibility of evidence and will otherwise regulate the conduct of the hearing.
The Participants state that the decision of the Fee Review Subcommittee will be subject to review by the Operating Committee either on its own motion within 20 business days after issuance of the decision or upon written request submitted by the applicant within 15 business days after issuance of the decision.
Under the proposed rule changes, any review conducted by the Operating Committee will be made upon the record and will be made after such further proceedings, if any, as the Operating Committee may order.
A final decision regarding the disputed CAT Fees by the Operating Committee, or the Fee Review Subcommittee (if there is no review by the Operating Committee), must be provided within 90 days of the date on which the Industry Member filed a written application regarding disputed CAT Fees with the Company.
Finally, the Participants state that an Industry Member that files a written application with the Company disputing CAT Fees in accordance with the Fee Dispute Resolution Procedures is not required to pay such CAT Fees until the dispute is resolved in accordance with the Procedures, including any review by the Commission or in any other appropriate forum.
After carefully considering the proposed rule changes, the Commission finds that the proposals, as modified by the Amendments, are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to national securities exchanges and national securities associations.
The Commission believes that the proposals are consistent with Section 6(b)
The Commission also notes that the proposals implement Section 11.5 of the CAT NMS Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to eliminate third party developer fees from the Schedule of Fees.
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 eliminate third party developer fees from the Schedule of Fees. Currently, the Schedule of Fees contains third party developer fees, which were previously charged for third party developer access to the ISE T7 test environment. Specifically, the Schedule of Fees includes the following fees for third party developers: (1) A $1,000 per month one time set-up fee, and (2) a $1,000 per month usage fee. With the migration of the Exchange to Nasdaq INET technology,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is removing outdated third party developer fees from the Schedule of Fees as the related services will no long be offered with the completed migration of the Exchange to Nasdaq INET. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any significant impact on competition.
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 change is consistent with the Act.
• 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 proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to correct an inadvertent marking error made to the Exhibit 5 in a previous rule filing. Specifically, on January 27, 2017, the Exchange filed a rule filing, SR-CBOE-2017-011, which proposed to expand the Marketing Fee program to Lead Market-Makers and also make certain clarifications to Footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule (which governs the Marketing Fee program), effective February 1, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to correct an inadvertent marking error made to the Exhibit 5 in a previous rule filing. Specifically, on January 27, 2017, the Exchange filed a rule filing, SR-CBOE-2017-011, which proposed to expand the Marketing Fee program to Lead Market-Makers and also make certain clarifications to Footnote 6 of the Fees Schedule (which governs the Marketing Fee program), effective February 1, 2017.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes correcting an inadvertent marking error from a previous rule filing in order to accurately reflect the option classes that are excluded from the marketing fee will alleviate potential confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed change is merely intended to correct an inadvertent marking error made in a previous rule filing, which will alleviate potential confusion.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List for equity transactions in stocks with a per share stock price more than $1.00 to (1) revise the credit for Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) for Mid-Point Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange, and (2) make certain non-substantive, clarifying changes. The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes on September 7, 2017.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) revise the credit for DMMs for MPL Orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange, and (2) make certain non-substantive, clarifying changes.
The proposed changes would only apply to transactions in securities priced $1.00 or more.
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective September 7, 2017.
The Exchange proposes the following changes to its Price List.
The current Price List provides that the Exchange charges $0.0010 for verbal interest on the close. The Price List also provides that non-electronic agency transactions of Floor brokers that execute at the close are not charged.
The Exchange would delete the current entry providing that there is no charge for non-electronic agency transactions of Floor brokers that execute at the close. This entry was inadvertently not deleted when the Exchange adopted the current charge for verbal interest on the close.
The Exchange currently charges $0.0010 for at the opening or at the opening only orders that are “credited to both sides.” The Exchange proposes to replace “At the opening or at the opening only orders” with “Executions at the Open.” The Exchange would also delete “credited to.” The Exchange believes that the reference is redundant and unnecessary.
An MPL Order is an undisplayed limit order that trades at the mid-point of the best protected bid (“PBB”) and best protected offer (“PBO”), as such terms are defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57) (together, “PBBO”).
The Exchange proposes changes to the Price List to consolidate and streamline presentation of the credits for MPL orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange. Currently, credits for MPL orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange, excluding MPL Orders from DMMs and Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLP”), are set forth separately from the related credits for MPL orders that add liquidity to the Exchange applicable to SLPs. The credit amounts and qualifications for SLP and non-SLP MPL orders that add liquidity to the Exchange are the same.
In order to consolidate these provisions, the Exchange proposes to delete (1) the phrase “and Supplemental Liquidity Providers (`SLPs')” from the provision governing credits for MPL orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange so as not to exclude SLP MPL orders, and (2) the SLP fees for MPL orders that add liquidity to the Exchange found under the heading “Credit Applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers (`SLPs')” of the Price List in their entirety. No substantive change would be effected since, as noted, the amount of the credits and qualifications for SLP and non-SLP MPL orders that add liquidity to the Exchange are currently the same and would remain unchanged.
The Exchange currently provides a credit of $0.0030 to DMMs for executions of MPL Orders in securities priced $1.00 or more that provide liquidity to the NYSE. The Exchange proposes to revise the credit to DMMs to $0.00275.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive changes to its Price List deleting obsolete entry relating to non-electronic agency transactions of Floor brokers at the close; clarifying that the charge for at the opening or at the opening only orders are “credited” to both sides; replacing “At the opening or at the opening only orders” with “Executions at the Open”; and consolidating and streamlining the presentation of the credits for MPL orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange are designed to provide greater specificity and clarity to the Price List, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest. Eliminating obsolete and redundant material also reduces potential confusion and adds transparency and clarity to the Exchange's rules, thereby ensuring that members, regulators, and the public can more easily navigate and understand the Exchange's rulebook.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to the credit for DMMs for MPL Orders that provide liquidity to the Exchange to $0.00275 per share is reasonable because the credit is in line with the best credit for member organizations of $0.00275 when the member organization has Adding ADV
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) amend the BOX Volume Rebate (“BVR”) in Section I.B.2; (2) modify the fees and rebate for Qualified Contingent Cross
First, the Exchange proposes to adjust a rebate within the BVR. Under the BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract rebate for all Public Customer PIP Orders and COPIP Orders of 100 and under contracts that do not trade solely with their contra order. Percentage thresholds are calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes. The Exchange proposes to raise the rebate for COPIP Orders in Tier 4 from $0.06 to $0.08. The Exchange notes that is it not proposing any changes to the percentage thresholds within the BVR. The quantity submitted will continue to be calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the BVR to remove the flat $0.03 rebate for those Public Customer COPIP Orders of 100 and under contracts that trade solely with their contra order. Public Customer PIP Orders of 100 and under contracts that trade solely with their contra order will continue to receive a $0.03 rebate per contract, regardless of tier.
The Exchange then proposes to amend the QCC Transaction fees and rebate. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to decrease the fees for all non-Public Customer (Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers) QCC Orders from $0.20 to $0.17 per contract side.
Finally, the Exchange also proposes to amend the footnote that defines a “Broker Dealer facilitating a Public Customer” in Section II (Manual Transactions) to clarify that the “Broker Dealer facilitating a Public Customer” account type and applicable fees will be applied, regardless of if the Broker Dealer clears in the customer range, or clears as a Broker Dealer. To do this, the Exchange proposes to amend the
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the BVR in Section I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to attract Public Customer order flow to the Exchange by offering these Participants incentives to submit their Public Customer PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange believes it is appropriate to now amend the BVR. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to amend the COPIP Rebate in Tier 4 of the BVR, as all Participants have the ability to qualify for a rebate, and rebates are provided equally to qualifying Participants. Other exchanges employ similar incentive programs;
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to no longer apply a flat $0.03 rebate to Public Customer COPIP Orders that trade solely with their contra order. As stated above, the BVR is intended to incentivize Participants to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange, and the Exchange believes unlike Public Customer PIP Orders, an incentive is not necessary for internalized Public Customer COPIP Orders that only trade against their contra order. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as all internalized Public Customer COPIP Orders will no longer receive a rebate. Additionally, other Exchanges also make this distinction when providing rebates for transactions in their complex order auction mechanisms.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the QCC Order fees are reasonable, as they are in line with the amount assessed at another Exchange for similar transactions.
The Exchange believes the proposed QCC Rebate for the originating side of the QCC transaction is reasonable, as it is in line with other competing exchanges that also provide a rebate on the originating side of a QCC Order.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that amending the language with regard to the definition of “Broker Dealer facilitating a Public Customer” is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as it intended to clarify that a “Broker Dealer facilitating a Public Customer” applies to any Manual transaction executed using the open outcry process involving a Broker Dealer that has a Public Customer of that same Broker Dealer on the contra side of the transaction, or where the Broker Dealer and the Public Customer both clear through the same clearing firm and the Broker Dealer clears in the customer range. The wording of the previous definition unintentionally restricted the definition of “Broker Dealer facilitating a Public Customer” to those Broker Dealers clearing in the customer range. The Exchange is now proposing to clarify that the account type will apply regardless of how the Broker Dealer clears. The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable as it is substantially similar to the definition “Broker Dealer facilitating a Public Customer” account type found on another exchange with an open outcry trading floor.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change amends the BVR to raise a rebate and no longer apply a rebate when the COPIP Order only trades with its contra order. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes burden competition and will instead help promote competition by providing additional incentives for market participants to submit customer order flow to BOX and thus, create a greater opportunity for retail customers to receive additional price improvement.
The Exchange believes this proposal will not cause unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed changes will actually enhance the competiveness of the Exchange relative to other exchanges which offer comparable fees and rebates for QCC transactions. To the extent that the proposed changes make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become market participants on the Exchange.
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 Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4332-DR), dated 09/04/2017.
Issued on 09/12/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Texas, dated 09/04/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4336—DR), dated September 10, 2017.
Issued on 09/12/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Utah, dated 09/11/2017.
Issued on 09/11/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 152950.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Utah, Nevada.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 3.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337—DR), dated 09/10/2017.
Issued on 09/13/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Hawaii dated 09/11/2017.
Issued on 09/11/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15296 5 and for economic injury is 15297 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Hawaii.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4336-DR), dated 09/10/2017.
Issued on 09/12/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated 09/10/2017.
Issued on 09/13/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Tony-Lee Thulsie, also known as Yakeen Thulsie, also known as Yaqeen ibn Hernani, also known as Yakeen, also known as Simba, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 28, 2017 at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center (SVC) 212-10 (First St. NE., Washington, DC 20515).
The public meeting will be on the state and trajectory of public diplomacy. The session will include a presentation and discussion of key findings from the Commission's
This meeting is open to the public, Members and staff of Congress, the State Department, Defense Department, the media, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. An RSVP is required. To attend and make any requests for reasonable accommodation, email Michelle Bowen at
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Commission shall represent the public interest and shall be selected from a cross section of educational, communications, cultural, scientific, technical, public service, labor, business, and professional backgrounds. Not more than four members shall be from any one political party. The President designates a member to chair the Commission.
The current members of the Commission are: Mr. Sim Farar of California, Chairman; Mr. William Hybl of Colorado, Vice Chairman; Ambassador Penne Korth-Peacock of Texas; Anne Terman Wedner of Illinois; and Ms. Georgette Mosbacher of New York. Two seats on the Commission are currently vacant.
This announcement will appear in the
To request further information about the meeting or the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, you may contact its Executive Director, Dr. Shawn Powers, at
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to November 20, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to G. Kevin Saba, Director, Office of Policy and Program Support, Office of Private Sector Exchange, ECA/EC, SA-5, Floor 5, Department of State, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20522-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Brandon-Lee Thulsie, also known as Sallahuddin Thulsie, also known as Salahuddin ibn Hernani, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester, NH, to dispose of 57 acres of airport land that is not required for aviation purposes at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport.
The subject parcel has been identified as property no longer needed for aviation use by the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport. The property is comprised of two (2) adjacent parcels of land, one located off of Pettengill Road in the Town of Londonderry, Rockingham County, New Hampshire and shown on the Town of Londonderry Tax Map as Map14/Lot 49-1, and the other located on Brown Avenue in the City of Manchester, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire shown on the City of Manchester Tax Map as Map 712, Lot 1B. The property was originally purchased as wetland mitigation land for the extension of Runway 35 in 2001. The property is located on the southwesterly side of the airport; it is a significant distance from the airfield environs.
Shortly after the land was acquired, it was determined by both the state and federal agencies having jurisdiction that the wetland mitigation requirements imposed upon the Airport with respect to the Trolley Crossing property were no longer required, and that the Property should be preserved as a wildlife corridor. Given the use of the property at this time, the airport determined that it was appropriate to identify New Hampshire Fish and Game, an environmentally oriented state agency, to continue to maintain the property in its natural state as a wildlife corridor in perpetuity.
The land will be transferred as a public benefit to the New Hampshire Fish and Game. A perpetual restrictive covenant is to be placed on the land that
Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2017.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the
FAA at the address listed under
Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803. Telephone: 781-238-7618.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), to change the current land use from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use of two parcels of land comprising a total of 18.6 acres of land. The northeasterly parcel is approximately 10.2 acres and the northwesterly parcel is approximately 8.4 acres. The Airport Layout Plan was updated with a Pen and Ink change to designate the parcel for non-aeronautical use. The annual savings in electrical costs created by the solar farm will offset the fair market value of the land lease over the lease period.
Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2017.
You may send comments using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under
Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Telephone: 781-238-7618.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017, PHMSA will host two public meetings. The first meeting will be led by PHMSA to gain public input on current proposals and discuss potential new work items for inclusion in the agenda of the 52nd session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG) held in Geneva, Switzerland from November 27 to December 6, 2017. The second meeting will be led by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to discuss proposals in preparation for the 34th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS) held in Geneva, Switzerland from December 6 to 8, 2017.
Conference call-in and “Skype meeting” capability will be provided for both meetings. Specific information on such access will be posted when available at
Mr. Steven Webb or Mr. Aaron Wiener, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-8553.
The primary purpose of PHMSA's meeting is to prepare for the 52nd session of the UNSCOE TDG. This session represents the second meeting scheduled for the 2017-2018 biennium. UNSCOE will consider proposals for the 21st Revised Edition of the
General topics on the agenda for the UNSCOE TDG meeting include:
• Explosives and related matters;
• Listing, classification, and packing;
• Electric storage systems;
• Transport of gases;
• Global harmonization of the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations with the Model Regulations;
• Guiding principles for the Model Regulations;
• Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency;
• New proposals for amendments to the Model Regulations;
• Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS); and
• Miscellaneous pending issues.
Following the 52nd session of the UNSCOE TDG, a copy of the Sub-Committee's report will be available at the UN Transport Division's Web site at
The
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated National 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.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410 (not toll free numbers).
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons 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 authorities listed below.
1. AHMADZADEGAN, Sadegh (a.k.a. “el_nitr0jen”; a.k.a. “Nitr0jen”; a.k.a. “Nitr0jen26”); DOB 27 Oct 1992; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, “Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” (“E.O. 13694”) for causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers.
2. FATHI, Ahmad (a.k.a. “M3HRAN”; a.k.a. “M3S3C3”; a.k.a. “MOHAMMADI, Farhad”), No. 12, Saremi Street, Nejatollahi Street, Tehran, Iran; Gharani St., Besharat St., Saremi Alley, No. 12, Tehran, Tehran, Iran; DOB 11 Sep 1978; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Identification Number 5725729366035 (Iran) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: ITSEC TEAM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ITSec Team, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
3. FIROOZI, Hamid (a.k.a. “H4mid@Tm3l”); DOB 06 Aug 1981; alt. DOB 23 Jun 1981; alt. DOB 01 Jan 1980; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: ITSEC TEAM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ITSec Team, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
4. GHAFFARINIA, Omid; DOB 24 Jun 1990; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13694 for causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers.
5. KEISSAR, Sina (a.k.a. “sina_molove”); DOB 20 May 1990; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13694 for causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers.
6. SAEDI, Nader (a.k.a. “tahersaedi”; a.k.a. “turk_server”; a.k.a. “turkserver”); DOB 22 Feb 1990; nationality Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13694 for causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers.
7. SHOKOHI, Amin (a.k.a. “Pejvak”); DOB 11 Jul 1990; alt. DOB 11 Jul 1989; alt. DOB 05 Aug 1981; POB Karaj, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: ITSEC TEAM).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, ITSec Team, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
1. DART AIRLINES (a.k.a. DART AIRCOMPANY; a.k.a. DART
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” (“E.O. 13224”) for providing material support and services to CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
2. ITSEC TEAM (a.k.a. AMN PARDAZESH KHARAZMI; a.k.a. “IT SECURITY & PENETRATION TESTING TEAM”; a.k.a. “POOYA DIGITAL SECURITY GROUP”), Unit 2, No. 129, Mir Ali Akbari St, Motahari Avenue, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [CYBER2].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13694 for causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers.
3. KHORS AIRCOMPANY (a.k.a. AVIAKOMPANIYA KHORS, TOV; a.k.a. KHORS AIR; a.k.a. TOVARYSTVO Z OBMEZHENOYU VIDPOVIDALNISTYU 'AVIAKOMPANIYA 'KHORS'; a.k.a. “HORS AIRLINES LTD.”), 60 Volunska Street, Kiev 03151, Ukraine; Bud. 34 Bul.Lesi Ukrainky, Kyiv 01133, Ukraine; Lesi Ukraini Bulvar 34, Kiev 252133, Ukraine; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Government Gazette Number 04937956 (Ukraine) [SDGT] [IFSR].
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for providing material support and services to CASPIAN AIR and AL-NASER AIRLINES, two persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
4. SADID CARAN SABA ENGINEERING COMPANY (a.k.a. SADID CARAN SABA COMPANY; a.k.a. SADID CARAN SABA ENG. CO.; a.k.a. “S.C. SABA ENG CO.”; a.k.a. “SABA CRANE”), Unit 501, No. 17, Beside Samen Drugstore, Hakim West Highway, Tehran, Iran; No. 1401, Cross 5th Golazin and 2nd Golara, Eshtehard Industrial Zone, Eshtehard, Alborz, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [NPWMD] [IFSR].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii) of Executive Order 13382 of June 28, 2005, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters” (“E.O. 13382”) for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of, Iran's ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13382.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public meetings; correction.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission published a document in the
Christopher Fioravante, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1455, or via email at
In the
In the
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administrations, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administrations, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. VAAR clause 852.236-91—778 Hours.
a. VAAR clause 852.236-91 for Qualified Data—.5 hour.
b. VAAR clause 852.236-91 for Weather Data—1 hour.
a. VAAR clause 852.236-91 for Qualified Data—1516.
b. VAAR clause 852.236-91 for Weather Data—20.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OMB invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
VAAR clause 852.228-71, Indemnification and Insurance, is used in solicitations for vehicle or aircraft services. It requires the apparent successful bidder/offeror, prior to contract award, to furnish evidence that the firm possesses the types and amounts of insurance required by the solicitation. This evidence is in the form of a certificate from the firm's insurance company. The information is required to protect VA by ensuring that the firm to which award will be made possesses the types and amounts of insurance required by the solicitation. It helps ensure that VA will not be held liable for any negligent acts of the contractor and ensures that VA beneficiaries and the public are protected by adequate insurance coverage.
VAAR clause 852.207-70, Report of Employment Under Commercial Activities, is used in solicitations for commercial items and services where the work is currently being performed by VA employees and where those employees might be displaced as a result of an award to a commercial firm. The clause requires contractors awarded such contracts to provide, within 5 days of contract award, a list of employment openings, including salaries and benefits, and blank job application forms. The clause also requires the contractor, prior to the contract start date, to report: The names of adversely affected Federal employees offered employment openings; the date the offer was made; a description of the position; the date of acceptance and the effective date of employment; the date of rejection if an employee rejected an offer; the salary and benefits contained in any rejected offer; and the names of employees who applied for but were not offered employment and the reasons for withholding offers to those employees. In addition, the clause requires the contractor, during the first 90 days of contract performance, to report the names of all persons hired or terminated under the contract. The information will be used by the contracting officer to monitor and ensure compliance by the contractor with the requirements of FAR clause 52.207-3, Right of First Refusal of Employment.
VA uses the information to determine whether additional contract terms and conditions are necessary to mitigate the conflict. 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.
a. VAAR Clause 852.237-7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance—750 hours.
b. VAAR clause 852.228-71, Indemnification and Insurance—250 hours.
c. VAAR clause 852.207-70, Report of Employment Under Commercial Activities—15 hours.
a. VAAR Clause 852.237-7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance—30 minutes.
b. VAAR clause 852.228-71, Indemnification and Insurance—30 minutes.
c. VAAR clause 852.207-70, Report of Employment Under Commercial Activities—30 minutes per report.
a. VAAR Clause 852.237-7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance—1 per each contract awarded.
b. VAAR clause 852.228-71, Indemnification and Insurance—1 per each contract awarded.
c. VAAR clause 852.207-70, Report of Employment Under Commercial Activities—3 reports per contract awarded.
a. VAAR Clause 852.237-7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance—1500.
b. VAAR clause 852.228-71, Indemnification and Insurance—500.
c. VAAR clause 852.207-70, Report of Employment Under Commercial Activities—10.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Special Medical Advisory Group will meet on October 18, 2017, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20420, Conference Room 230 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Group is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of Veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
The agenda for the meeting will include a review of the CARE Plan, Health Improvement Center, and a review of the Manchester investigation.
Thirty (30) minutes will be allocated at the end of the meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee to Jeff Harp at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Under Secretary for Health (10), Veterans Health Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, phone 202-461-7016 or by email at
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should email
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee will meet on November 2, 2017 at the Hilton Garden Inn, 1225 First Street NE., Washington, District of Columbia, 20002. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on using genetic information to optimize medical care for Veterans and to enhance development of tests and treatments for diseases particularly relevant to Veterans.
The Committee will receive program updates and continue to provide insight into optimal ways for VA to incorporate genomic information into its health care program while applying appropriate ethical oversight and protecting the privacy of Veterans. The meeting focus will be on the status of ongoing interagency collaborations, updates on scientific research using the Million Veteran Program cohort, and clinical implications of genetics in better identification and treatment of diseases impacting Veterans. The Committee will also receive an update from the Clinical Genomics Service. Public comments will be received at 3:15 p.m. and are limited to 5 minutes each. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record to Dr. Sumitra Muralidhar, Designated Federal Officer, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or by email at
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
38 U.S.C. 103.
By direction of the Secretary:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
By direction of the Secretary.
National Capital Planning Commission.
Final rule.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) hereby adopts new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Regulations. NCPC must comply with the requirements of FOIA when it process requests for Information submitted pursuant to FOIA.
This rule is effective October 20, 2017.
Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer, 202-482-7223,
On June 30, 2016, President Obama signed into law the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-185). The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 addresses a range of procedural issues, including, among others, the requirement that agencies establish a minimum of 90 days for requesters to file an administrative appeal; provide dispute resolution services at various times throughout the FOIA process; refrain from charging fees for failure to comply with mandated time limits; engage in proactive disclosure of records of general interest or use to the public that are appropriate for such disclosure; and apply the Department of Justice's “foreseeable harm” standard as the basis for withholding information pursuant to an exemption contained in FOIA.
NCPC adopted updated FOIA regulations in February 2014. As a result, NCPC included many of the Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP) policies into its existing regulations some of which are now incorporated as law into the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. This means the new FOIA Regulations (FOIA Regulations) required only a few changes to comply with the requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.
NCPC published its existing FOIA regulations under Title 1, Chapter IV, part 456 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Historically, Title 1, Chapter IV (Miscellaneous Agencies), Parts 455, 456, and 457 of the CFR contained NCPC regulations (Privacy, FOIA, and Nondiscrimination respectively). However, as there were no additional parts within Chapter IV to accommodate NCPC's recently adopted National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations, the Office of the Federal Register assigned NCPC a new Chapter—Chapter VI—within Title 1 for consolidation of all current and future NCPC regulations. As NCPC revises its existing regulations and prepares new ones, each revised and new regulation will be published in the next sequential Part of Chapter VI. The next sequential Part available for NCPC's revised FOIA regulations is Part 602. Thus, the revised FOIA regulations are advertised as Part 602.
The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 requires agencies to establish a minimum of 90 days for requesters to file an administrative appeal. NCPC's FOIA regulations incorporate this requirement in § 602.12(a) (Appeals of Adverse Determinations). Section 602.12(g) enumerates the ability to extend time limits for responding to a FOIA request (20 days) and the process to be followed by NCPC to extend the time limits.
The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 requires agencies to advise Requesters of the availability of dispute resolution services at various times throughout the FOIA process. The Act provides for these services to be offered by an agency's FOIA Public Liaison and OGIS. NCPC's FOIA Regulations reference these services in §§ 602.5 (FOIA Request requirements), 602.6 (FOIA Response requirements), and 602.12 (Appeals of Adverse Determinations).
The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 precludes the collection of fees if an agency fails to meet mandated FOIA time limits. NCPC's FOIA regulations contain this limitation in § 602.13(f)(1). Section 602.13(f)(2) introduces a new fee construct contained in the FOIA Improvements Act of 2016 for Requests that generate 5000 pages of responsive records.
As a general matter, the FOIA Regulations contain a reorganized fee section. The current regulations organize the fee section based on types of fees,
The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 requires agencies to proactively disclose in electronic format records that have been requested three or more times. It also requires application of the Department of Justice's “foreseeable harm” standard as the basis for withholding information pursuant to an exemption contained in FOIA. The concept of proactive disclosure is already contained in NCPC's current regulations and is carried over in NCPC's FOIA Regulations at §§ 602.2(b) (Policy) and 602.4(b)(10) (Information Available without a FOIA Request). The foreseeable harm standard is incorporated in § 602.6(c).
NCPC's existing regulations contain an entire section devoted to a description of the Agency's organizational structure and the Commission's composition (See, 1 CFR 456.2). As this information is now readily available on NCPC's Web site, the referenced section has been removed from the FOIA Regulations. As a consequence, the remaining sections of the FOIA Regulations have been renumbered. Moreover, the Policy section has been moved. It now follows the Purpose section (renamed from General Information) and proceeds the Definition section. This appeared to be a move logical organizational structure.
NCPC published a proposed rule addressing revisions to its current FOIA Regulations in the
NCPC received no comments on its proposed FOIA Regulations. Consequently, the proposed FOIA Regulations are now being advertised as the final FOIA Regulations.
By Memorandum dated October 12, 1993 from Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent Agencies, OMB rendered the NCPC exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (See, Appendix A of cited Memorandum). Nonetheless, NCPC endeavors to adhere to the provisions of Executive Orders and developed this rule in a manner consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13563.
By virtue of its exemption from the requirements of EO 12866, NCPC is exemption from this Executive Order. NCPC confirmed this fact with OIRA.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; will not cause a major increase in costs for individuals, various levels of governments or various regions; and does not have a significant adverse effect on completion, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or the competitiveness of US enterprises with foreign enterprises.
A statement regarding the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required. The rule neither imposes an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year nor imposes a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The rule does not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and state governments.
The General Counsel of NCPC has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of Executive Order 12988 3(a) and 3(b)(2).
The rule does not contain information collection requirements, and it does not require a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The rule is of an administrative nature, and its adoption does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NCPC's adoption of the rule will have minimal or no effect on the environment; impose no significant change to existing environmental conditions; and will have no cumulative environmental impacts.
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 12988, and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998 requires the NCPC to write all rules in plain language. NCPC maintains the rule meets this requirement. Those individuals reviewing the rule who believe otherwise should submit specific comments to the addresses noted above recommending revised language for those provisions or portions thereof where they believe compliance is lacking.
Be advised that personal information such as name, address, phone number, electronic address, or other identifying personal information contained in a comment may be made publically available. Individuals may ask NCPC to withhold the personal information in their comment, but there is no guarantee the agency can do so.
Freedom of information.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Capital Planning Commission amends 1 CFR Chapter IV and establishes 1 CFR Chapter VI to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.
This part contains the rules the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) shall follow in processing third party Requests for Records concerning the activities of the NCPC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. Requests made by a U.S. citizen or an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence to access his or her own records under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 522a are processed under this part and in accordance with part 603 of Title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to provide the greatest degree of access while safeguarding an individual's personal privacy. Information routinely provided to the public as part of regular NCPC activity shall be provided to the public without regard to this part.
(a) It is the NCPC's policy to facilitate the broadest possible availability and dissemination of information to the public through use of the NCPC's Web site,
(b) To the maximum extent possible, the NCPC shall make available agency Records of interest to the public that are appropriate for disclosure.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) The need to Search for and collect the Requested Agency Records from establishments that are separate from the Commission's offices;
(2) The need to Search for, collect and appropriately examine and Review a voluminous amount of separate and distinct Agency Records which are demanded in a single Request; or
(3) The need for consultation with another Agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the FOIA Request.
(a) The NCPC shall maintain an electronic library at
(b) The following types of Records shall be available routinely without resort to formal FOIA Request procedures unless such Records fall within one of the exemptions listed at 5 U.S.C. 552(b) of the Act:
(1) Commission agendas;
(2) Plans and supporting documentation submitted by applicants to the Commission to include environmental and historic preservation reports prepared for a plan or project;
(3) Executive Director's Recommendations;
(4) Commission Memoranda of Action;
(5) Transcripts of Commission proceedings;
(6) The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements and other plans prepared by the NCPC;
(7) Federal Capital Improvements Plan for the National Capital Region following release of the President's Budget;
(8) Policies adopted by the Commission;
(9) Correspondence between the Commission and the Congress, other federal and local government agencies, and the public; and
(10) Frequently Requested Documents.
(a) The NCPC shall designate a Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer who shall be authorized to grant or deny any Request for a Record of the NCPC.
(b) Requests for a Record or Records that is/are not available in the actual or electronic reading rooms shall be directed to the Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer.
(c) All FOIA Requests shall be made in writing. If sent by U.S. mail, Requests should be sent to NCPC's official business address contained on the NCPC Web site. If sent via email, they should be directed to
(d) The FOIA Request shall:
(1) State that the Request is made pursuant to the FOIA;
(2) Describe the Agency Record(s) Requested in sufficient detail including, without limitation, any specific information known such as date, title or name, author, recipient, or time frame for which you are seeking Records, to enable the NCPC personnel to locate the Requested Agency Records;
(3) State, pursuant to the fee schedule set forth in § 602.14, a willingness to pay all fees associated with the FOIA Request or the maximum fee the Requester is willing to pay to obtain the Requested Records, unless the Requester is seeking a Fee Waiver or placement in a certain Requester Category;
(4) State, if desired, the preferred form or format of disclosure of Agency Records with which the NCPC shall endeavor to comply unless compliance would damage or destroy an original Agency Record or reproduction is costly and/or requires the acquisition of new equipment; and
(5) Provide a phone number, email address or mailing address at which the Requester can be reached to facilitate the handling of the Request.
(e) If a FOIA Request is unclear, overly broad, involves an extremely voluminous amount of Records or a burdensome Search, or fails to state a willingness to pay the requisite fees or the maximum fee which the Requester is willing to pay, the NCPC shall endeavor to contact the Requester to define the subject matter, identify and clarify the Records being sought, narrow the scope of the Request, and obtain assurances regarding payment of fees. The timeframe for a response set forth in § 602.6(a) shall be tolled (stopped temporarily) and the NCPC will not begin processing a Request until the NCPC obtains the information necessary to clarify the Request and/or clarifies issues pertaining to the fee.
(f) NCPC shall designate a FOIA Public Liaison to assist a Requester in making a Request or to assist a Requester in correcting a Request that does not reasonably describe the Records sought or to correct other deficiencies described in paragraph (e) of this section that necessitate follow-up with the Requester.
(a) The Freedom of Information Act Officer, upon receipt of a FOIA Request made in compliance with these rules, shall determine whether to grant or deny the Request. The Freedom of Information Officer shall notify the Requester in writing within 20 Workdays of receipt of a perfected Request of his/her determination and the reasons therefore and of the right to appeal any Adverse Determination to the head of the NCPC.
(b) In cases involving Unusual Circumstances, the agency may extend the 20 Workday time limit by written notice to the Requester. The written notice shall set forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension of more than 10 Working Days unless the agency affords the Requester an opportunity to modify his/her Request or arranges an alternative timeframe with the Requester for completion of the NCPC's processing. The agency shall also advise the Requester of his/her right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison or OGIS to resolve time limit disputes arising under this paragraph.
(c) NCPC shall deny a Request based on an exemption contained in the FOIA and withhold information from disclosure pursuant to an exemption only if NCPC reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law. If a Request is denied based on an exemption, NCPC's response shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (d) below.
(d) If a Request is denied in whole or in part, the Chief FOIA Officer's written determination shall include, if technically feasible, the precise amount of information withheld, and the exemption under which it is being withheld unless revealing the exemption would harm an interested protected by the exemption. NCPC shall release any portion of a withheld Record that reasonably can be segregated from the exempt portion of the Record.
The NCPC may use multiple tracks for processing FOIA Requests based on the complexity of Requests and those for which expedited processing is Requested. Complexity shall be determined based on the amount of work and/or time needed to process a Request and/or the number of pages of responsive Records. If the NCPC utilizes Multi-track Processing, it shall advise a Requester when a Request is placed in a slower track of the limits associated with a faster track and afford the Requester the opportunity to limit the scope of its Request to qualify for faster processing.
(a) The NCPC shall provide Expedited Processing of a FOIA Request if the person making the Request demonstrates that the Request involves:
(1) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;
(2) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information;
(3) The loss of substantial due process rights; or
(4) A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exists possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public confidence.
(b) A Request for Expedited Processing may be made at the time of the initial FOIA Request or at a later time.
(c) A Requester seeking Expedited Processing must submit a detailed statement setting forth the basis for the Expedited Processing Request. The Requester must certify in the statement that the need for Expedited Processing is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. To qualify for Expedited Processing, a Requester relying upon the category in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must establish:
(1) He/She is a full time Representative of the News Media or primarily engaged in the occupation of information dissemination, though it need not be his/her sole occupation;
(2) A particular urgency to inform the public about the information sought by the FOIA Request beyond the public's right to know about the government activity generally; and
(3) The information is of the type that has value that will be lost if not disseminated quickly such as a breaking news story. Information of historical interest only or information sought for litigation or commercial activities will not qualify nor would a news media deadline unrelated to breaking news.
(d) Within 10 calendar days of receipt of a Request for expedited processing, the NCPC shall decide whether to grant or deny the Request and notify the Requester of the decision in writing. If a Request for Expedited Processing is granted, the Request shall be given priority and shall be processed in the expedited processing track as fast as practicable. If a Request for Expedited Processing is denied, any appeal of that decision shall be acted on expeditiously.
(a) If a Requester seeks a Record in which another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, NCPC shall either respond to the FOIA Request after consultation with the Agency best able to determine if the Requested Record(s) is/are subject to disclosure or refer the responsibility for responding to the FOIA Request to the Agency responsible for originating the Record(s). Generally, the Agency originating a Record will be presumed by the NCPC to be the Agency best qualified to render a decision regarding disclosure or exemption except for Agency Records submitted to the NCPC pursuant to its authority to review Agency plans and/or projects.
(b) Upon referral of Records to another Agency, the NCPC shall notify the Requester in writing of the referral, inform the Requester of the name of the Agency to which all or part of the responsive records have been referred, provide the Requester a description of the part of the Request referred, and advise the Requester of a point of contact within the receiving Agency.
(c) The timeframe for a response to a FOIA Request requiring consultation or referral shall be based on the date the FOIA Request was initially received by the NCPC and not any later date.
(a) For Requests for an Agency Record that has been classified or may be appropriate for classification by another Agency pursuant to an Executive Order concerning the classification of Records, the NCPC shall refer the responsibility for responding to the FOIA Request to the Agency that either classified the Record, should consider classifying the Record, or has primary interest in the Record, as appropriate.
(b) Whenever a Request is made for a Record that is designated Controlled Unclassified Information by another Agency, the NCPC shall refer the FOIA Request to the Agency that designated the Record as Controlled Unclassified Information. Decisions to disclose or withhold information designated as Controlled Unclassified Information shall be made based on the applicability of the statutory exemptions contained in the FOIA, not on a Controlled
(a) Confidential Commercial Information obtained by the NCPC from a Submitter shall be disclosed under the FOIA only in accordance with the requirements of this section.
(b) A Submitter of Confidential Commercial Information shall use good-faith efforts to designate, by appropriate markings, either at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. These designations will expire ten years after the date of the submission unless the Submitter requests, and provides justification for, a longer designation period.
(c) Notice shall be given to a Submitter of a FOIA Request for potential Confidential Commercial Information if:
(1) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the Submitter as Confidential Commercial Information eligible for protection from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA; or
(2) The NCPC has reason to believe the requested information is Confidential Commercial Information protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.
(d) Subject to the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (g) of this section, the NCPC shall provide a Submitter with prompt written notice of a FOIA Request or administrative appeal that seeks the Submitter's Confidential Commercial Information. The notice shall give the Submitter an opportunity to object to disclosure of any specified portion of that Confidential Commercial Information pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. The notice shall either describe the Confidential Commercial Information Requested or include copies of the Requested Records or portions thereof containing the Confidential Commercial Information. When notice to a large number of Submitters is required, NCPC may provide notification by posting or publishing the notice in a place reasonably likely to accomplish the intent of the notice requirement such as a newspaper, newsletter, the NCPC Web site, or the
(e) The NCPC shall allow a Submitter a reasonable time to respond to the notice described in paragraph (d) of this section and shall specify within the notice the time period for response. If a Submitter has any objection to disclosure, it shall submit a detailed written statement. The statement must specify all grounds for withholding any portion of the Confidential Commercial Information under any exemption of the FOIA and, in the case of Exemption 4, it must show why the Confidential Commercial Information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. If the Submitter fails to respond to the notice within the specified time, the NCPC shall consider this failure to respond as no objection to disclosure of the Confidential Commercial Information on the part of the Submitter, and NCPC shall proceed to release the requested information. A statement provided by the Submitter that is not received by NCPC until after the NCPC's disclosure decision has been made shall not be considered by the NCPC. Information provided by a Submitter under this paragraph may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
(f) The NCPC shall consider a Submitter's objections and specific grounds for nondisclosure in deciding whether to disclose Confidential Commercial Information. Whenever the NCPC decides to disclose Confidential Commercial Information over the objection of a Submitter, the NCPC shall give the Submitter written notice, which shall include:
(1) A statement of the reason(s) why each of the Submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;
(2) A description of the Confidential Commercial Information to be disclosed; and
(3) A specified disclosure date, which shall be a reasonable time subsequent to the notice.
(g) The notice requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply if:
(1) The NCPC determines that the Confidential Commercial Information is exempt under FOIA;
(2) The Confidential Commercial Information has been published lawfully or has been officially made available to the public;
(3) The Confidential Commercial Information's disclosure is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 (Predisclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information); or
(4) The designation made by the Submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous in which case the NCPC shall, within a reasonable time prior to a specified disclosure date, give the Submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the Confidential Commercial Information.
(h) Whenever a Requester files a lawsuit seeking to compel the disclosure of Confidential Commercial Information, the NCPC shall promptly notify the Submitter.
(i) Whenever the NCPC provides a Submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure under paragraph (d) of this section, the NCPC shall also notify the Requester. Whenever the NCPC notifies a Submitter of its intent to disclose Requested Information under paragraph (f) of this section, the NCPC shall also notify the Requester. Whenever a Submitter files a lawsuit seeking to prevent the disclosure of Confidential Commercial Information, the NCPC shall notify the Requester.
(a) An appeal of an Adverse Determination shall be made in writing to the Chairman of the Commission (Chairman). An appeal may be submitted via U.S. mail or other type of manual delivery service or via email or facsimile within 90 Workdays of the date of a notice of an Adverse Determination. To facilitate handling of an appeal, the words Freedom of Information Act Appeal shall appear prominently on the transmittal envelope or the subject line of a Request sent via electronic-mail or facsimile.
(b) An appeal of an Adverse Determination shall include a detailed statement of the legal, factual or other basis for the Requester's objections to an Adverse Determination; a daytime phone number or email address where the Requester can be reached if the NCPC requires additional information or clarification regarding the appeal; copies of the initial Request and the NCPC's written response; and for an Adverse Determination of a Request for Expedited Processing or a Fee Waiver, a demonstration of compliance with the requirements of §§ 602.8(a) and (c) or 602.15(a) through (c) respectively.
(c) The Chairman shall respond to an appeal of an Adverse Determination in writing within 20 Workdays of receipt.
(1) If the Chairman grants the appeal, the Chairman shall notify the Requester, and the NCPC shall make available copies of the Requested Records promptly thereafter upon receipt of the appropriate fee determined in accordance with § 602.13.
(2) If the Chairman denies the appeal in whole or in part, the letter to the Requester shall state
(i) The reason(s) for the denial, including the FOIA exemptions(s) applied;
(ii) A statement that the decision is final;
(iii) A notice of the Requester's right to seek judicial review of the denial in the District Court of the United States in either the locale in which the Requester resides, the locale in which the Requester has his/her principal place of business, or in the District of Columbia; and
(iv) A notice that the Requester may seek dispute resolution services from either the NCPC FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to resolve disputes between a Requester and the NCPC as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Contact information for OGIS can be obtained from the OGIS Web site at
(d) The NCPC shall not act on an appeal of an Adverse Determination if the underlying FOIA Request becomes the subject of FOIA litigation.
(e) A party seeking court review of an Adverse Determination must first appeal the decision under this section to NCPC.
(a) NCPC shall charge fees for processing FOIA requests in accordance with the provisions of this section and OMB Guidelines.
(b) For purposes of assessing fees, NCPC shall categorize Requesters into three categories: Commercial Use Requesters; Noncommercial Scientific Institutions, Educational Institutions, and News Media Requesters; and all other Requesters. Different fees shall be charged depending upon the category into which a Requester falls. If fees apply, a Requesters may seek a fee waiver in accordance with the requirements of § 602.15.
(c) Search Fees shall be charged as follows:
(1) NCPC shall not charge Search fees to Requests made by Educational Institutions, Noncommercial Scientific Institutions, or Representatives of the New Media. NCPC shall charge Search fees to all other Requesters subject to the restrictions of paragraph (f)(5) of this section even if NCPC fails to locate any responsive Records or if the NCPC withholds Records located based on a FOIA exemption.
(2) For each quarter hour spent by personnel searching for Requested Records, including electronic searches that do not require new programming, the Search fees shall be calculated based on the average hourly General Schedule (GS) base salary, plus the District of Columbia locality payment, plus 16 percent for benefits of employees in the following three categories: Staff Assistant (assigned at the GS 9-11 grades); Professional Personnel (assigned at the GS 11-13 grades); and Managerial Staff (assigned at the 14-15 grades). For a Staff Assistant the quarter hour fee to Search for and retrieve a Requested Record shall be $9.00. If a Search and retrieval cannot be performed entirely by a Staff Assistant, and the identification of Records within the scope of a Request requires the use of Professional Personnel, the fee shall be $12.00 for each quarter hour of Search time spent by Professional Personnel. If the time of Managerial Personnel is required, the fee shall be $18.00 for each quarter hour of Search time spent by Managerial Personnel.
(3) For a computer Search of Records, Requesters shall be charged the Direct Costs of creating a computer program, if necessary, and/or conducting the Search. Direct Costs for a computer Search shall include the cost that is directly attributable to the Search for responsive Records and the costs of the operator's salary for the time attributable to the Search.
(d) Duplication fees shall be charged to all Requesters, subject to the limitations of paragraph (f)(5) of this section. For a paper photocopy of a Record (no more than one copy of which shall be supplied), the fee shall be 10 cents per page for single or double sided copies, 90 cents per page for 8
(e) Review fees shall be charged to only those Requesters who make a Commercial Use Request. Review fees will be charged only for the NCPC initial Review of a Record to determine whether an exemption applies to a particular Record or portion thereof. No charge will be made for Review at the administrative appeal level for an exemption already applied. However, Records or portions thereof withheld under an exemption that is subsequently determined not applicable upon appeal may be reviewed again to determine whether any other exemption not previously considered applies. If the NCPC determines a different exemption applies, the costs of that Review are chargeable. Review fees will be charged at the same rates as those charged for a Search under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(f) The following limitations on fees shall apply:
(1) If NCPC fails to comply with the time limits in which to respond to a request, NCPC shall not charge Search fees or, in the case of Educational Institutions, Noncommercial Scientific Institutions, or Representatives of the News Media, duplication fees, except as described in paragraphs (f)(2)-(4) of this section.
(2) If NCPC has determined that unusual circumstances as defined by the FOIA apply, and the agency provided timely written notice to the Requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional 10 days.
(3) If NCPC determines that Unusual Circumstances exist, and more than 5000 pages of responsive records are necessary to respond to the Request, NCPC may charge Search fees. NCPC may also charge duplication fees in the case of Educational Institutions, Noncommercial Scientific Institutions, or Representatives of the News Media. The provisions of this paragraph shall only apply if NCPC provides timely written notice of the Unusual Circumstances to the Requester and discusses with the Requester via mail, e-mail or phone (or made at least three good faith efforts to do so) how to effectively limit the scope of the Request.
(4) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.
(5) No Search or Review fees shall be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for Search or Review.
(6) Except for Requesters of a Commercial Use Request, the NCPC shall provide without charge the first two hours of Search (or the cost equivalent) and the first 100 pages of Duplication (or the cost equivalent);
(7) Except for Requesters of a Commercial Use Request, no fee shall be charged for a Request if the total fee calculated under this section equals $50.00 or less.
(8) Requesters other than those making a Commercial Use Request shall not be charged a fee unless the total cost of a Search in excess of two hours plus the cost of Duplication in excess of 100 pages totals more than $50.00.
(g) If the NCPC determines or estimates fees in excess of $50.00, the NCPC shall notify the Requester of the actual or estimated amount of total fees,
(h) Apart from other provisions of this section, if the Requester asks for, or the NCPC chooses as a matter of administrative discretion to provide a special service—such as certifying that Records are true copies or sending them by other than ordinary mail, the actual costs of special service shall be charged.
(i) The NCPC shall charge interest on any unpaid fee starting on the 31st day following the date of billing the Requester. Interest charges will be assessed at the rate provided in 31 U.S.C. 3717 (Interest and Penalty on Claims) and will accrue from the date of the billing until payment is received by the NCPC. The NCPC shall follow the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749), as amended, and its administrative procedures, including the use of consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies, and offset.
(j) Where the NCPC reasonably believes that one or more Requesters are acting in concert to subdivide a Request into a series of Requests to avoid fees, the NCPC may aggregate the Requests and charge accordingly. The NCPC shall presume that multiple Requests of this type made within a 30-day period have been made to avoid fees. Where Requests are separated by a time period in excess of 30 days, the NCPC shall aggregate the multiple Requests if a solid basis exists for determining aggregation is warranted under all circumstances involved.
(k) Advance payments shall be treated as follows:
(1) For Requests other than those described in paragraphs (k)(2) and (3) of this section, the NCPC shall not require an advance payment. An advance payment refers to a payment made before work on a Request is begun or continued after being stopped for any reason but does not extend to payment owed for work already completed but not sent to a Requester.
(2) If the NCPC determines or estimates a total fee under this section of more than $250.00, it shall require an advance payment of all or part of the anticipated fee before beginning to process a Request, unless the Requester provides satisfactory assurance of full payment or has a history of prompt payment.
(3) If a Requester previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to the NCPC within 30 days of the date of billing, the NCPC shall require the Requester to pay the full amount due, plus any applicable interest, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of any anticipated fee, before the NCPC begins to process a new Request or continues processing a pending Request from that Requester.
(4) If the NCPC requires advance payment or payment due under paragraphs (k)(2) or (3) of this section, the Request shall not be considered received and no further work will be undertaken on the Request until the required payment is received.
(l) Where Records responsive to Requests are maintained for distribution by Agencies operating statutorily based fee schedule programs, the NCPC shall inform Requesters of the steps for obtaining Records from those sources so that they may do so most economically.
(m) All fees shall be paid by personal check, money order or bank draft drawn on a bank of the United States, made payable to the order of the Treasurer of the United States.
(a) Records responsive to a Request shall be furnished without charge or at a charge reduced below that established under § 602.14 if the Requester demonstrates to the NCPC, and the NCPC determines, based on all available information, that Disclosure of the Requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, and disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the Requester.
(b) To determine if disclosure of the Requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, the Requester shall demonstrate, and NCPC shall consider, the following factors:
(1) Whether the subject of the Requested Records concerns the operations or activities of the government. The subject of the Requested Records must concern identifiable operations or activities of the federal government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.
(2) Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute to an understanding of government operations or activities. The portions of the Requested Records eligible for disclosure must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either a duplicative or a substantially identical form, is not likely to contribute to an understanding of government operations and activities because this information is already known.
(3) Whether disclosure of the Requested information will contribute to public understanding. The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the Requester. A Requester's expertise in the subject area and ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a Representative of the News Media satisfies this consideration.
(4) Whether the disclosure is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations or activities. The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent, as compared to the level of public understanding existing prior to the disclosure. The NCPC shall not make value judgments about whether information that would contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government is important enough to be made public.
(c) To determine whether disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the Requester, the Requester shall demonstrate, and NCPC shall consider, the following factors:
(1) Whether the Requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the Requested disclosure. The NCPC shall consider any commercial interest of the Requester (with reference to the definition of Commercial Use Request in § 602.3(f)), or of any person on whose behalf the Requester may be acting, that would be furthered by the Requested disclosure. Requesters shall be given an opportunity in the administrative process to provide explanatory information regarding this consideration.
(2) Whether any identified commercial interest of the Requester is sufficiently large in comparison with the public interest in disclosure that disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the Requester. A Fee Waiver is justified where the public interest standard of paragraph (b) of this section is satisfied and that public interest is greater in magnitude than that of any identified commercial interest in disclosure. The NCPC ordinarily shall presume that a Representative of the News Media satisfies the public interest standard, and the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that Requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.
(d) Where only some of the Records to be released satisfy the requirements for a Fee Waiver, a Fee Waiver shall be granted for those Records.
(e) Requests for a Fee Waiver should address the factors listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, insofar as they apply to each Request. The NCPC shall exercise its discretion to consider the cost-effectiveness of its investment of administrative resources in this decision-making process in deciding to grant Fee Waivers.
(a) The NCPC shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to FOIA Requests received and copies or Records provided until disposition or destruction is authorized by the NCPC's General Records schedule established in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approved schedule.
(b) Materials that are responsive to a FOIA Request shall not be disposed of or destroyed while the Request or a related lawsuit is pending even if the Records would otherwise be authorized for disposition under the NCPC's General Records Schedule or NARA or other NARA-approved records schedule.
National Capital Planning Commission.
Final rule.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) hereby adopts new regulations governing NCPC's implementation of the Privacy Act, as amended and the privacy provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002. NCPC must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act and the privacy provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002 for records maintained on individuals and personal information stored as a hard copy or electronically.
This rule is effective October 20, 2017.
Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel at 202-482-7223,
NCPC adopted its current Privacy Regulations (1 CFR part 455) in 1977 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a. Since that time, Congress amended the Privacy Act multiple times including the E-Government Act of 2002 which addressed requirements for maintaining electronic privacy records. The regulations update NCPC's existing Privacy Regulations to reflect amendments over time. The Office of the Federal Register recently assigned NCPC a new chapter of 1 CFR—Chapter VI—to allow NCPC to group all its regulations together in one chapter.
NCPC eliminates its Privacy Regulations at 1 CFR part 455 and codifies the new Privacy Regulations at 1 CFR part 603.
The section requires the contents of an accounting to include the date, nature, and purpose of the disclosure and the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure was made. The section also requires Accountings of disclosures to be made available to the Individual about whom the disclosed Record pertains except under limited circumstances. It further requires changes to disclosed Records to be shared with the person or agency to whom the Record was originally disclosed.
NCPC published a proposed rule addressing revisions to its current Privacy Act Regulations in the
NCPC received no comments on its proposed Privacy Act Regulations. Consequently, the proposed Privacy Act Regulations are now being advertised as the final Privacy Act Regulations.
By Memorandum dated October 12, 1993 from Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent Agencies, OMB rendered the NCPC exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (See, Appendix A of cited Memorandum). Nonetheless, NCPC endeavors to adhere to the provisions of Executive Orders and developed this rule in a manner consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13563.
By virtue of its exemption from the requirements of EO 12866, NCPC is exempted from this Executive Order. NCPC confirmed this fact with OIRA.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; will not cause a major increase in costs for individuals, various levels of governments or various regions; and does not have a significant adverse effect on completion, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or the competitiveness of US enterprises with foreign enterprises.
A statement regarding the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required. The rule neither imposes an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year nor imposes a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The rule does not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and state governments.
The General Counsel of NCPC has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of Executive Order 12988 3(a) and 3(b)(2).
The rule does not contain information collection requirements, and it does not require a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The rule is of an administrative nature, and its adoption does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NCPC's adoption of the rule will have minimal or no effect on the environment; impose no significant change to existing environmental conditions; and will have no cumulative environmental impacts.
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 12988, and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998 requires the NCPC to write all rules in plain language. NCPC maintains the rule meets this requirement. Those individuals reviewing the rule who believe otherwise should submit specific comments to the addresses noted above recommending revised language for those provision or portions thereof where they believe compliance is lacking.
Be advised that personal information such as name, address, phone number, electronic address, or other identifying personal information contained in a comment may be made publically available. Individuals may ask NCPC to withhold the personal information in their comment, but there is no guarantee the agency can do so.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Capital Planning Commission amends 1 CFR Chapters IV and VI as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552a as amended and 44 U.S.C. ch. 36.
(a) This part contain the rules the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) shall follow to implement a privacy program as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act or Act) and the privacy provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. ch. 36) (E-Government Act). These rules should be read together with the Privacy Act and the
(b) Consistent with the requirements of the Privacy Act, the rules in this part apply to all Records maintained by NCPC in a System of Records; the responsibilities of the NCPC to safeguard this information; the procedures by which Individuals may request notification of the existence of a record, request access to Records about themselves, request an amendment to or correction of those Records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those Records by the NCPC; and the procedures by which an Individual may appeal an Adverse Determination.
(c) Consistent with the privacy related requirements of the E-Government Act, the rules in this part also address the conduct of a privacy impact assessment prior to developing or procuring information technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form, initiating a new electronic collection of information in identifiable form for 10 or more persons excluding agencies, instrumentalities or employees of the federal government, or changing an existing System that creates new privacy risks.
(d) In addition to the rules in this part, the NCPC shall process all Privacy Act Requests for Access to Records in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and part 602 of this chapter.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) The NCPC shall designate a Senior Agency Official for Privacy (SAOP) to establish and oversee the NCPC's Privacy Act Program and ensure compliance with privacy laws, regulations and the NCPC's privacy policies. Specific responsibilities of the SAOP shall include:
(1) Reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress on the establishment of or revision to Privacy Act Systems;
(2) Reporting periodically to OMB on Privacy Act activities as required by law and OMB;
(3) Signing Privacy Act SORNS for publication in the
(4) Approving and signing PIAs; and
(5) Serving as head of the agency response team when responding to a large-scale information breach.
(b) The NCPC shall designate a Privacy Act Officer (PAO) to coordinate
(1) Developing, issuing and updating, as necessary, the NCPC's Privacy Act policies, standards, and procedures;
(2) Maintaining Privacy Act program Records and documentation;
(3) Responding to Privacy Act Requests for Records and coordinating appeals of Adverse Determinations for Requests for access to Records, Requests for Amendment or Correction of Records, and Requests for accounting for disclosures;
(4) Informing Individuals of information disclosures;
(5) Working with the NCPC's Division Directors or designated staff to develop an appropriate form for collection of Privacy Act information and including in the form a Privacy Act statement explaining the purpose for collecting the information, how it will be used, the authority for such collection, its routine uses, and the effect upon the Individual of not providing the requested information;
(6) Assisting in the development of new or revised SORNs;
(7) Developing SORN reports for OMB and Congress;
(8) Submitting new or revised SORNS to the
(9) Assisting in the development of computer matching systems;
(10) Preparing Privacy Act, Computer Matching, and other reports to OMB as required; and
(11) Evaluating PIA to ensure compliance with E-Government Act requirements.
(c) Other Privacy related responsibilities shall be shared by the NCPC Division Directors, the NCPC Chief Information Officer (CIO), the NCPC System Developers and Designers, the NCPC Configuration Control Board, the NCPC employees, and the Chairman of the Commission.
(1) The NCPC Division Directors shall be responsible for coordinating with the PAO the implementation of the requirements set forth in this part for Systems of Records applicable to their area of management and the preparation of PIA prior to development or procurement of new systems that collect, maintain or disseminate IIF. Specific responsibilities include:
(i) Reviewing existing SOR for need, relevance, and purpose for existence, and proposing SOR changes to the PAO as necessary in response to altered circumstances;
(ii) Reviewing existing SOR to ensure information is accurate, complete and up to date;
(iii) Coordinating with the PAO the preparation of new or revised SORN;
(iv) Coordinating with the PAO the development of an appropriate form for collection of Privacy Act information and including in the form a Privacy Act statement explaining the purpose for collecting the information, how it will be used, the authority for such collection, its routine uses, and the effect upon the Individual of not providing the requested information;
(v) Collecting information directly from individuals whenever possible;
(vii) Assisting the PAO with providing access to Individuals who request information in accordance with the procedures established in §§ 603.12, 603.13, 603.14 and 603.15.
(vii) Amending Records if and when appropriate, and working with the PAO to inform recipients of former Records of such amendments;
(viii) Ensuring that System information is used only for its stated purpose;
(ix) Establishing and overseeing appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure security and confidentiality of Records; and
(x) Working with the SAOP, the PAO and Configuration Control Board (CCB) on SORs, preparing a PIA, if needed, and obtaining SAOP approval for a PIA prior to its publication on the NCPC Web site.
(2) The CIO shall be responsible for implementing IT security management to include security for information protected by the Privacy Act and the E-Government Act of 2002. Specific responsibilities include:
(i) Overseeing security policy for privacy data; and
(ii) Reviewing PIAs prepared for information security considerations.
(3) The NCPC System Developers and Designers shall be responsible for ensuring that the IT system design and specifications conform to privacy standards and requirements and that technical controls are in place for safeguarding personal information from unauthorized access.
(4) The NCPC CCB shall, among other responsibilities, verify that a PIA has been prepared prior to approving a request to develop or procure information technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates Information in Identifiable Form.
(5) The NCPC employees shall ensure that any personal information they use in the conduct of their official responsibilities is protected in accordance with the rules set forth in this part.
(6) The Chairman of the Commission shall be responsible for acting on all appeals of Adverse Determinations.
(a) Records Maintained by the NCPC shall contain only such information about an Individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose NCPC must accomplish to comply with relevant statutes or Executive Orders of the President.
(b) Records Maintained by the NCPC and used to make a determination about an Individual shall be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete to assure a fair determination.
(c) Information used by the NCPC in making a determination about an Individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under federal programs shall be collected, to the greatest extent practicable, directly from the Individual. In deciding whether collection of information about an Individual, as opposed to a third party is practicable, the NCPC shall consider the following:
(1) Whether the information sought can only be obtained from a third party;
(2) Whether the cost to collect the information from an Individual is unreasonable compared to the cost of collecting the information from a third party;
(3) Whether there is a risk of collecting inaccurate information from a third party that could result in a determination adverse to the Individual concerned;
(4) Whether the information collected from an Individual requires verification by a third party; and
(5) Whether the Individual can verify information collected from third parties.
(d) The NCPC shall not Maintain Records describing how an Individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution unless the maintenance of the Record is expressly authorized by statute or by the Individual about whom the Record is Maintained or pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.
(a) Each Individual asked to supply information about himself/herself to be added to a System of Records shall be informed by the NCPC of the basis for requesting the information, its potential use, and the consequences, if any, of not supplying the information. Notice to the Individual shall state at a minimum:
(1) The legal authority for NCPC's solicitation of the information and whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary;
(2) The principal purpose(s) for which the NCPC intends to use the information;
(3) The potential routine uses of the information by the NCPC as published in a Systems of Records Notice; and
(4) The effects upon the individual, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested Information to the NCPC.
(b) When NCPC collects information on a standard form, the notice to the Individual shall either be provided on the form, on a tear off sheet attached to the form, or on a separate form, whichever is deemed the most practical by the NCPC.
(c) NCPC may ask an Individual to acknowledge, in writing, receipt of the notice required by this section.
(a) The NCPC shall publish a notice in the
(b) The SORN shall include:
(1) The name and location of the System of Records. The name shall identify the general purpose, and the location shall include whether the system is located on the NCPC's main server or central files. The physical address of either shall also be included.
(2) The categories or types of Individuals on whom NCPC Maintains Records in the System of Records;
(3) The categories or types of Records in the System;
(4) The statutory or Executive Order authority for Maintenance of the System;
(5) The purpose(s) or explanation of why the NCPC collects the particular Records including identification of all internal and routine uses;
(6) The policies and practices of the NCPC regarding storage, retrieval, access controls, retention and disposal of Records;
(7) The title and business address of the agency official responsible for the identified System of Records;
(8) The NCPC procedures for notification to an Individual who requests if a System of Records contains a Record about the Individual; and
(9) The NCPC sources of Records in the System.
(a) The NCPC shall implement the procedures set forth in this section to insure sufficient administrative, technical and physical safeguards exist to protect the security and confidentiality of Records. The enumerated procedures shall also protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security of Records with the potential to cause substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any Individual on whom information is Maintained.
(b) Manual Records subject to the Privacy Act shall be maintained by the NCPC in a manner commensurate with the sensitivity of the information contained in the Records. The following minimum safeguards or safeguards affording comparable protection shall apply to manual Systems of Records:
(1) The NCPC shall post areas where Records are maintained or regularly used with an appropriate warning sign stating access to the Records shall be limited to authorized persons. The warning shall also advise that the Privacy Act prescribes criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure of Records subject to the Act.
(2) During work hours, the NCPC shall protect areas in which Records are Maintained or regularly used by restricting occupancy of the area to authorized persons or storing the Records in a locked container and room.
(3) During non-working hours, access to Records shall be restricted by their storage in a locked storage container and room.
(4) Any lock used to secure a room where Records are stored shall not be capable of being disengaged with a master key that opens rooms other than those in which Records are stored.
(c) Computerized Records subject to the Privacy Act shall be maintained, at a minimum, subject to the safeguards recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publications 800-53, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations as revised from time to time or any superseding guidance offered by NIST or other federal agency charged with the responsibility for providing recommended safeguards for computerized Records subject to the Privacy Act.
(d) NCPC shall maintain a System of Records comprised of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) personnel Records in accordance with standards prescribed by OPM and published at 5 CFR 293.106-293.107.
(a) Employees with duties requiring access to and handling of Records shall, at all times, take care to protect the integrity, security, and confidentiality of the Records.
(b) No employee of the NCPC shall disclose Records unless disclosure is permitted by § 603.10(b), by part 602 of this chapter, or disclosed to the Individual to whom the Record pertains.
(c) No employee of the NCPC shall alter or destroy a Record unless such Record or destruction is undertaken in the course of the employee's regular duties or such alteration or destruction is allowed pursuant to regulations published by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or required by a court of competent jurisdiction. Records shall not be destroyed or disposed of while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal or lawsuit under the Privacy Act.
(a) When a contract provides for third party operation of a SOR on behalf of the NCPC to accomplish a NCPC function, the contract shall require that the requirements of the Privacy Act and the rules in this part be applied to such System.
(b) The Division Director responsible for the contract shall designate a NCPC employee to oversee and manage the SOR operated by the contractor.
(a) Except as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, no Record contained in a SOR shall be disclosed by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, unless prior written consent is obtained from the Individual to whom the Record pertains.
(b) The limitations on disclosure contained in paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply when disclosure of a Record is:
(1) To employees of the NCPC for use in the performance of their duties;
(2) Required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 555;
(3) For a Routine Use as described in a SORN;
(4) To the Bureau of Census for statistical purposes, provided that the Record must be transferred in a form that precludes individual identification;
(5) To an Individual who provides NCPC adequate written assurance that the Record shall be used solely for statistical or research purposes, provided that the Record must be transferred in a form that precludes Individual identification;
(6) To the NARA because the Record warrants permanent retention because of historical or other national value as determined by NARA or to permit NARA to determine whether the Record has such value;
(7) To a law enforcement agency for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity, provided that the law enforcement agency must submit a written request to the NCPC specifying the Record(s) sought and the purpose for which they will be used;
(8) To any person upon demonstration of compelling information that an Individual's health or safety is at stake and provided that upon disclosure, notification is given to the Individual to whom the Record pertains at that Individual's last known address;
(9) To either House of Congress, and any committee or subcommittee thereof, to include joint committees of both houses and any subcommittees thereof, when a Record falls within their jurisdiction;
(10) To the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, to allow the Government Accountability Office to perform its duties;
(11) Pursuant to a court order by a court of competent jurisdiction; and
(12) To a consumer reporting agency trying to collect a claim of the government as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
(a) Except for disclosures made under §§ 603.10(b)(1)-(2), when a Record is disclosed to any person, or to another agency, NCPC shall prepare an accounting of the disclosure. The accounting shall Record the date, nature, and purpose of the disclosure and the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure was made. The NCPC shall maintain all accountings for a minimum of five years or the life of the Record, whichever is greatest, after the disclosure is made.
(b) Except for disclosures under § 603.10(b)(7), accountings of all disclosures shall be made available to the Individual about whom the disclosed Records pertains at his/her request. Such request shall be made in accordance with the requirements of § 603.15.
(c) For any disclosure for which an accounting is made, if a subsequent amendment or correction or notation of dispute is made to a Record by the NCPC in accordance with the requirements of § 603.14, the Individual and/or agency to whom the Record was originally disclosed shall be informed.
(a) An Individual seeking to determine whether a System of Records contains Records pertaining to him/her shall do so by appearing in person at NCPC's official place of business or by written correspondence to the NCPC PAO. In-person requests shall be by appointment only with the PAO on a Workday during regular office hours. Written requests sent via the U.S. mail shall be directed to the Privacy Act Officer at NCPC's official address listed at
(b) The Request shall state that the Individual is seeking information concerning the existence of Records about himself/herself and shall supply information describing the System where such Records might be maintained as set forth in a System of Record Notice.
(c) The NCPC PAO shall notify the Requester in writing within 20 Workdays of the Request whether a System contains Records pertaining to him/her unless the Records were compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding or the Records are NCPC employee Records under the jurisdiction of the OPM. In both of the later cases the Request shall be denied. If the Request is denied because the Record(s) is/are under the jurisdiction of the OPM, the response shall advise the Requester to contact OPM. If the PAO denies the Request, the response shall state the reason for the denial and advise the Requester of the right to appeal the decision within 60 days of the date of the letter denying the request in accordance with the requirements set forth in § 603.16.
(a) An Individual seeking access to Records about himself/herself shall do so by appearing in person at NCPC's official place of business or by written correspondence to the NCPC Privacy Act Officer. In-person requests shall be by appointment only with the Privacy Act Officer on a Workday during regular office hours. For written requests sent via the U.S. mail, the Request shall be directed to the Privacy Act Officer at NCPC's official address listed at
(b) The Request shall:
(1) State the Request is made pursuant to the Privacy Act;
(2) Describe the requested Records in sufficient detail to enable their location including, without limitation, the dates the Records were compiled and the name or identifying number of each System of Record in which they are kept as identified in the list of NCPC's SORNs published on its Web site; and
(3) State pursuant to the fee schedule in set forth in § 603.17 a willingness to pay all fees associated with the Privacy Act Request or the maximum fee the Requester is willing to pay.
(c) The NCPC shall require identification as follows before releasing Records to an Individual:
(1) An Individual Requesting Privacy Act Records in person shall present a valid, photographic form of identification such as a driver's license, employee identification card, or passport that renders it possible for the PAO to verify that the Individual is the same Individual as contained in the requested Records.
(2) An Individual Requesting Privacy Act Records by mail shall state their full name, address and date of birth in their correspondence. The Request must be signed and the signature must either be notarized or submitted with a statement signed and dated as follows: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts establishing my identification are true and correct.
(d) The PAO shall determine within 20 Workdays whether to grant or deny an Individual's Request for Access to the requested Record(s) and notify the Individual in writing accordingly. The PAO's response shall state his/her determination and the reasons therefor. If the Request is denied because the Record(s) is/are under the jurisdiction of the OPM, the response shall advise the Requester to contact OPM. In the case of an Adverse Determination, the written notification shall advise the Individual of his/her right to appeal the Adverse Determination in accordance with the requirements of § 603.16.
(a) An Individual seeking to amend or correct a Record pertaining to him/her that he/she believes to be inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely or incomplete shall submit a written request to the PAO at the address listed on NCPC's official Web site
(b) The Request shall:
(1) State the Request is made pursuant to the Privacy Act;
(2) Describe the requested Record in sufficient detail to enable its location
(3) State in detail the reasons why the Record, or objectionable portion(s) thereof, is/are not accurate, relevant, timely or complete.
(4) Include copies of documents or evidence relied upon in support of the Request for Amendment or Correction; and
(5) State specifically, and in detail, the changes sought to the Record, and if the changes include rewriting the Record, or portions thereof, or adding new language, the Individual shall propose specific language to implement the requested changes.
(c) A request to Amend or Correct a Record shall be submitted only if the Requester has previously requested and been granted access to the Record and has inspected or been given a copy of the Record.
(d) The PAO shall render a decision within 20 Workdays. If the Request for an Amendment or Correction fails to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)-(5) of this section, the PAO shall advise the Individual of the deficiency and advise what additional information is required to act upon the Request. The timeframe for a decision on the Request shall be tolled (stopped) during the pendency of a request for additional information and shall resume when the additional information is received. If the Requester fails to submit the requested additional information within a reasonable time, the PAO shall reject the Request.
(e) The PAO's decision on a Request for Amendment or Correction shall be in writing and state the basis for the decision. If the Request is denied because the Record(s) is/are under the jurisdiction of the OPM, the response shall advise the Requester to contact OPM. In the event of an Adverse Determination, the written notification shall advise the Individual of his/her right to appeal the Adverse Determination in accordance with the requirements of § 603.16.
(f) If the PAO approves the Request for Amendment or Correction, the PAO shall ensure that subject Record is amended or corrected, in whole or in part. If the PAO denies the Request for Amendment or Correction, a notation of dispute shall be noted on the Record. If an accounting of disclosure has been made pursuant to § 603.11, the PAO shall advise all previous recipients of the Record that an amendment or correction or notation of dispute has been made and, if applicable, the substance of the change.
(a) An Individual seeking information regarding an accounting of disclosure of a Record pertaining to him/her made in accordance with § 603.11 shall submit a written request to the PAO at the address listed on NCPC's official Web site
(b) The Request shall:
(1) State the Request is made pursuant to the Privacy Act; and
(2) Describe the requested Record in sufficient detail to determine whether it is or is not contained in an accounting of disclosure.
(c) The NCPC PAO shall notify the Requester in writing within 20 Workdays of the Request and advise if the Record was included in an accounting of disclosure. In the event of a disclosure, the response shall include the date, nature, and purpose of the disclosure and the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure was made. If the Request is denied because the Record(s) is/are under the jurisdiction of the OPM, the response shall advise the Requester to contact OPM. In the event of an Adverse Determination, the written notification shall advise the Individual of his/her right to appeal the Adverse Determination in accordance with the requirements of § 603.16.
(a) Except for appeals pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, an appeal of an Adverse Determination shall be made in writing addressed to the Chairman (Chairman) of the National Capital Planning Commission at the address listed on NCPC's official Web site
(b) An appeal of an Adverse Determination shall include a statement of the legal, factual or other basis for the Requester's objection to an Adverse Determination; a daytime phone number or email where the Requester can be reached if the Chairman requires additional information or clarification regarding the appeal; copies of the initial request and the PAO's written response; and for an Adverse Determination regarding a fee waiver, a demonstration of compliance with part 602 of this chapter.
(c) The Chairman shall respond to an appeal of an Adverse Determination in writing within 20 Workdays of receipt of the appeal. If the Chairman grants the appeal, the Chairman shall notify the Requester, and the NCPC shall take prompt action to respond affirmatively to the original Request upon receipt of any fees that may be required. If the Chairman denies the appeal, the letter shall state the reason(s) for the denial, a statement that the decision is final, and advise the Requester of the right to seek judicial review of the denial in the District Court of the United States in either the district in which the Requester resides, the district in which the Requester has his/her principal place of business or the District of Columbia.
(d) The appeal of an Adverse Determination based on OPM jurisdiction of the Records shall be made to OPM pursuant to 5 CFR 297.306.
(e) The NCPC shall not act on an appeal of an Adverse Determination if the underlying Request becomes the subject of litigation.
(f) A party seeking court review of an Adverse Determination must first appeal the Adverse Determination under this section.
(a) The NCPC shall charge for the duplication of Records under this subpart in accordance with the schedule of fees set forth in part 602 of this chapter. The NCPC shall not charge duplication fees when the Requester asks to inspect the Records personally but is provided copies at the discretion of the agency.
(b) The NCPC shall not charge any fees for the search for or review of Records requested by an Individual.
(a) Consistent with the requirements of the E-Government Act and OMB Memorandum M-03-22, the NCPC shall conduct a PIA before:
(1) Developing or procuring IT systems or projects that collect, maintain, or disseminate IIF; or
(2) Installing a new collection of information that will be collected, maintained, or disseminated using IT and includes IIF for 10 or more persons (excluding agencies, instrumentalities or employees of the federal government).
(b) The PIA shall be prepared through the coordinated effort of the NCPC's privacy Officers (SAOP, PAO), Division Directors, CIO, and IT staff.
(c) As a general rule, the level of detail and content of a PIA shall be commensurate with the nature of the information to be collected and the size and complexity of the IT system involved. Specifically, a PIA shall analyze and describe:
(1) The information to be collected;
(2) The reason the information is being collected;
(3) The intended use for the information;
(4) The identity of those with whom the information will be shared;
(5) The opportunities Individuals have to decline to provide the information or to consent to particular uses and how to consent;
(6) The manner in which the information will be secured; and
(7) The extent to which the system of records is being created under the Privacy Act.
(d) In addition to the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)-(7) of this section, the PIA must also identify the choices NCPC made regarding an IT system or collection of information as result of preparing the PIA.
(e) The CCB shall verify that a PIA has been prepared prior to approving a request to develop or procure information technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates Information in Identifiable Form.
(f) The SAOP shall approve and sign the NCPC's PIA. If the SAOP is the Contracting Officer for the IT system that necessitated preparation of the PIA, the Executive Director shall approve and sign the PIA.
(g) Following approval of the PIA, the NCPC shall post the PIA document on the NCPC Web site located 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 |