| Page Range | 44053-44298 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 44053 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 44127 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 44297 - Prescription Opioid and Heroin Epidemic Awareness Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 44295 - National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 44293 - National Gang Violence Prevention Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 44291 - National Farm Safety and Health Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 44289 - Constitution Day, Citizenship Day, and Constitution Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 44183 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44074 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Canaveral Barge Canal, Canaveral, FL | |
| 82 FR 44216 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council | |
| 82 FR 44193 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 44196 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 82 FR 44195 - Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 44205 - Extension of South Sudan for Temporary Protected Status | |
| 82 FR 44106 - Technical Amendments to Procedure 6 | |
| 82 FR 44178 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Survey on Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances and Spill Impacts | |
| 82 FR 44177 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington; EPA ICR No. 2020.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0558 | |
| 82 FR 44101 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control Technology for US Watercraft, LLC | |
| 82 FR 44180 - Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC); Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 82 FR 44180 - Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action for the Cordero-McDermitt Calcine Pile Site, McDermitt, Nevada | |
| 82 FR 44079 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances | |
| 82 FR 44158 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 44218 - Virginia Electric and Power Company; North Anna Power Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation | |
| 82 FR 44108 - Adding the Polar Ship Certificate to the List of SOLAS Certificates and Certificates Issued by Recognized Classification Societies | |
| 82 FR 44211 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program | |
| 82 FR 44073 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Beach Thorofare, Margate City, NJ | |
| 82 FR 44212 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Counseling Program-Application for Approval as a Housing Counseling Agency | |
| 82 FR 44063 - Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 82 FR 44213 - Notice of Meeting for the Steens Mountain Advisory Council's Public Land Access Subcommittee, Oregon | |
| 82 FR 44213 - Notice of Public Meeting for the John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council, Oregon | |
| 82 FR 44214 - Public Meeting for the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council and Its Planning and Recreation Subcommittees, Nevada | |
| 82 FR 44216 - Notice of Public Meeting for the San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 44195 - Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 44195 - Florida; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 82 FR 44164 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal Construction Project in Washington State | |
| 82 FR 44232 - Active Weighting Funds ETF Trust and Active Weighting Advisors LLC | |
| 82 FR 44181 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 44180 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 44118 - Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services | |
| 82 FR 44240 - Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor | |
| 82 FR 44192 - Florida; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 44196 - Florida; Emergency and Related Determinations | |
| 82 FR 44183 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 44242 - Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44221 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 44074 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA | |
| 82 FR 44160 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 44220 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments Request | |
| 82 FR 44218 - Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44151 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a Biological Control Agent for Swallow-Worts | |
| 82 FR 44151 - Addition of Uganda to the List of Regions Affected by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza | |
| 82 FR 44156 - Addition of Zimbabwe to the List of Regions Affected by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza | |
| 82 FR 44152 - International Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard-Setting Activities | |
| 82 FR 44220 - Initiatives To Address Gas Accumulation Following Generic Letter 2008-01 | |
| 82 FR 44191 - Notice of Single-Award Deviation From Competition Requirements for the Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID) Newborn Screening Program at the Jeffrey Modell Foundation | |
| 82 FR 44162 - Schedules for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops | |
| 82 FR 44243 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for Tribal Transportation Program Safety Funds | |
| 82 FR 44215 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona | |
| 82 FR 44077 - Safety Zone; Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA | |
| 82 FR 44189 - 2017 Scientific Meeting of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 44185 - Department of Health and Human Services, Supply Service Center et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 27 Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 82 FR 44188 - Drug Development in Pediatric Heart Failure: Extrapolation, Clinical Trial Design, and Endpoints; Public Workshop | |
| 82 FR 44187 - Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 44240 - 2017 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Thailand: Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 44242 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 44229 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To Amend Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide for the Listing of Companies That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That Are Not Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public Offering and Related Changes to Rules 15, 104, and 123D | |
| 82 FR 44217 - Certain Graphic Processors, DDR Memory Controllers, and Products Containing the Same; Termination of Investigation on the Basis of Settlement | |
| 82 FR 44241 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 44217 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Chapter 11 of The United States Bankruptcy Code | |
| 82 FR 44221 - Submission for Review: Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season Express Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System and Open Season Web Site | |
| 82 FR 44191 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 44203 - Intent To Request Extension From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Imposition and Collection of Passenger Civil Aviation Security Service Fees | |
| 82 FR 44249 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; CDFI Program and NMTC Program Annual Report Including CIIS | |
| 82 FR 44250 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 44234 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Implement the Capped Contingency Liquidity Facility in the Government Securities Division Rulebook | |
| 82 FR 44224 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt the Clearing Agency Risk Management Framework | |
| 82 FR 44235 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of Fees To Offer Monthly Subscriptions for Open and Close Trade Profile Information | |
| 82 FR 44222 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to a Proposal To Amend Rule 1027, Discretionary Accounts, To Conform It More Closely to a Comparable Rule of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) and To Make Minor Corrections and Clarifications | |
| 82 FR 44160 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 82 FR 44159 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 35-Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Estee Lauder Inc. (Skin Care, Fragrance, and Cosmetic Products) Bristol and Trevose, Pennsylvania | |
| 82 FR 44183 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, (BSC, OPHPR) | |
| 82 FR 44239 - Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the The Options Clearing Corporation For an Order Granting the Approval of Proposed Rule Change Concerning a Proposed Capital Plan for Raising Additional Capital That Would Support the Options Clearing Corporation's Function as a Systemically Important Financial Market Utility; Corrected Order Scheduling Filing of Statements on Review | |
| 82 FR 44238 - Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the Options Clearing Corporation; Corrected Order Denying Motion for Stay | |
| 82 FR 44143 - Fees for the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement | |
| 82 FR 44192 - National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 44183 - SES Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 44157 - Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 44131 - Air Plan Promulgation and Approval; Kansas; Revisions to the Construction Permits and Approvals Program | |
| 82 FR 44103 - Approval of Kansas Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Construction Permits and Approvals Program | |
| 82 FR 44075 - Safety Zone; Weskeag River, South Thomaston, ME | |
| 82 FR 44184 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 44099 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey, 2011 Periodic Emission Inventory SIP for the Ozone Nonattainment and PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 44176 - Public Hearings: Proposal To Withdraw Proposed Determination To Restrict the Use of an Area as a Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska | |
| 82 FR 44222 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 44128 - Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) | |
| 82 FR 44057 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mineral Point, WI | |
| 82 FR 44129 - Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) | |
| 82 FR 44060 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lemoore NAS, CA | |
| 82 FR 44058 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Cheyenne, WY | |
| 82 FR 44053 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: EnergySolutionsTM | |
| 82 FR 44126 - Airworthiness Criteria: Glider Design Criteria for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000M Glider | |
| 82 FR 44127 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Ohio Towns; Millersburg, OH and Coshocton, OH | |
| 82 FR 44131 - 911 Grant Program | |
| 82 FR 44061 - Special Local Regulation; Frogtown Regatta, Maumee River, Toledo, OH | |
| 82 FR 44198 - Privacy Act of 1974; DHS/CBP-024 Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records | |
| 82 FR 44124 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records | |
| 82 FR 44254 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology Review |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of September 20, 2017, for the direct final rule that was published in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0138 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175; email:
On July 7, 2017 (82 FR 31433), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in part 72 of title 10 of the
In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on September 20, 2017. The NRC did not receive any comments on the direct final rule. Therefore, this direct final rule will become effective as scheduled. The final CoC, Technical Specifications, and Safety Evaluation Report can be viewed in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML17242A189.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rule document 2017-19301 was originally published on pages 42929 through 42932 in the issue of Wednesday, September 13, 2017. In that publication, on page 42931, Figure 1 was formatted incorrectly. The corrected document is republished here in its entirety.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-13-12, which applied to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-13-12 required modification or replacement of certain side stay assemblies of the main landing gear (MLG). This new AD clarifies the formatting of a figure in the published version of AD 2017-13-12. This new AD was prompted by reports indicating that affected parties misinterpreted the applicability of the affected part numbers due to the
This AD is effective September 28, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 9, 2017 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017).
We must receive comments on this AD by October 30, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Airbus service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this final rule, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet:
You may view this referenced 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. It is also available on the Internet at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
On June 19, 2017, we issued AD 2017-13-12, Amendment 39-18942 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-12”), which applied to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-13-12 was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH), which indicates that the main landing gear (MLG) does not comply with certification specifications, which could result in a locking failure of the MLG side stay. AD 2017-13-12 required modification or replacement of certain MLG side stay assemblies. We issued AD 2017-13-12 prevent possible collapse of the MLG during takeoff and landing.
Since we issued AD 2017-13-12, we have received reports indicating that affected parties misinterpreted the applicability of the affected part numbers due to the formatting of figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) in the published version of AD 2017-13-12, which could result in a negative effect on compliance. Therefore, we have determined that clarification of the formatting of the published figure is necessary.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0018R1, dated September 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The EASA AD is referenced in AD 2017-13-12. EASA has not revised its AD since the issuance of AD 2017-13-12.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We have reviewed the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.
• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.
The service information describes procedures for modifying the MLG side stay assembly. The Messier-Bugatti-Dowty documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We are superseding AD 2017-13-12 to clarify the formatting of a figure in the regulatory text of the published AD. No other changes have been made to AD 2017-13-12. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry. This AD adds no new economic burden to AD 2017-13-12. 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 September 28, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-13-12, Amendment 39-18942 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-12”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder that indicates that the main landing gear (MLG) does not comply with certification specifications, which could result in a locking failure of the MLG side stay. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible collapse of the MLG during takeoff and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-13-12, with revised figure formatting. Within 120 months after August 9, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-12), accomplish the action specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify each MLG side stay assembly having a part number listed in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016, and the service information specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. The modification may be done “off wing,” provided the modified MLG is reinstalled on the airplane.
(i) For Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; and Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes: Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.
(ii) For Model A321 series airplanes: Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.
(2) Replace the MLG side stay assembly with a side stay assembly that has been modified in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Additional guidance for the replacement can be found in Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-13-12, with no changes. An airplane on which Airbus Modification (Mod) 156646, Airbus Mod 161202, or Airbus Mod 161346 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided it is determined that no part having a part number identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the original export certificate of airworthiness. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination, provided that these records are accurate and can be relied upon to conclusively make that determination.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2017-13-12, with no changes. As of August 9, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-13-12), do not install on any airplane, an MLG side stay assembly having a part number, with the strike number not cancelled, as identified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, unless it has been modified in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j) of AD 2017-13-12, with no
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0018R1, dated September 14, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3), (m)(4), and (m)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 9, 2017 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017).
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.
(ii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.
(iii) Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.
(4) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(5) For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet:
(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 action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Mineral Point non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach. This action enhances the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Support Specialist, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward 700 feet above the surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI.
The FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 7.2-mile radius) of Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI. The 5.2-mile wide segment from the Mineral Point NDB extending from the 7.2-mile radius of the airport to 7.4 miles northeast is removed, due to the decommissioning and cancellation of the Mineral Point NDB, and NDB approaches. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Iowa County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport (formerly, Cheyenne Airport), Cheyenne, WY. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Cheyenne instrument landing system (ILS) locator outer marker and removal of the Cheyenne VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) from the airspace description as the FAA transitions from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. Also, this action updates the airport name and geographic coordinates for the associated Class D and E airspace areas to reflect the FAA's current aeronautical database, and makes an editorial change in the legal description by replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D and E airspace at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, Cheyenne, WY, in support of instrument flight rules operations at the airport.
On June 2, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, modifying Class E surface area airspace, and modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, Cheyenne, WY. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Cheyenne ILS locator outer marker, removal of the Cheyenne VORTAC from the airspace description, and the availability of diverse departure headings as the FAA transitions from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. Class D airspace is amended by removing the segment on each side of the Cheyenne ILS localizer east course extending from the 5.6-mile radius to the outer marker.
Class E surface area airspace is amended to be coincident with the Class D airspace, and effective during the times the Class D is not in effect.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within an 8.1-mile radius (from 12.2 miles) of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, and within a 9.1-mile radius of the airport from the 240° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 300° bearing from the airport with a segment on each side of a 275° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 9.1-mile radius to 10.6 miles west of the airport, and with another segment on each side of the 028° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 8.1 mile radius to 10.8 miles northeast of the airport. The airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 43.6-mile radius of the airport (from a polygon of similar area) to provide controlled airspace for diverse departures until reaching the overlying Class E airspace.
Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to match the FAA's current aeronautical database. This action also updates the airport name to Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport (from Cheyenne Airport). Finally, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 8,700 feet MSL within a 5.6-mile radius of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.6-mile radius of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport from the 300° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 240° bearing, and within a 9.1-mile radius of the airport from the 240° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 300° bearing from the airport, and within 2.2 miles each side of the 275° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 9.1-mile radius to 10.6 miles west of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of a 028° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 8.1 mile radius to 10.8 miles northeast of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 43.6-mile radius of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action amends the legal description of the Class E airspace designated as an extension, at Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), Lemoore, CA, eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status. This action does not affect the charted boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Robert LaPlante, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4566.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes NOTAM part-time information for Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D at Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), Lemoore, CA.
The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D, for Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), Lemoore, CA, as published in FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part-time status. This action makes the update.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the following language from the legal description of Class E airspace designated as an extension at Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), Lemoore, CA, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory”. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.2-mile radius of Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), and within 1.8 miles each side of the Lemoore TACAN 335° and 357° radials, extending from the 5.2-mile radius of Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field) to 7 miles northwest and north of the TACAN, and within 1.8 miles each side of the Lemoore TACAN 155° radial, extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the TACAN.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at Maumee river mile 4.30 to the Michael DiSalle Bridge at River mile 6.73. This regulated area is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Frogtown Regatta. Entry of vessels or persons into this regulated area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or a designated representative.
This temporary final rule is effective from 5 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 23, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Ryan Erpelding, Prevention Department, MSU Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone 419-418-6037, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this regatta until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. We must establish this area by September 23, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with regatta from 5 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 23, 2017 will be a safety concern to anyone within waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at river mile 4.30 to the Michael DiSalle Bridge at river mile 6.73. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the regatta occurs.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 5 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 23, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at river mile 4.30 to the Michael DiSalle Bridge at river mile 6.73. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer. Vessels will be operated at a no wake speed to reduce the wake to a minimum, in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft and remain vigilant for event participants and safety craft. Additionally, vessels must yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and must follow directions given by the COTP or a designated representative. The rules contained in the above two sentences do not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of their assigned duties. Commercial vessels will have right-of-way over event participants and event safety craft. The races will stop for oncoming freighter or commercial traffic and will resume after the vessel has completed its passage through the regulated area. COTP or a designated representative may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any boat or vessel within the regatta area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the U.S. COTP or a designated representative shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled must stop and comply with the orders of the COTP or a designated representative. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The COTP or a designated representative may establish vessel size and speed limitations and operating conditions and may restrict vessel operation within the regatta area to vessels having particular operating characteristics. The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property.
Patrol Commander means a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to monitor a regatta area, permit entry into the regatta area, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within the regatta area, and take other actions authorized by the COTP. The Patrol Commander will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area, which will impact a small designated area of the Maumee River from 5 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 23, 2017. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation interval lasting from 5a.m. through 6 p.m., that will prohibit entry within waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at river mile 4.30 to the Michael DiSalle Bridge at river mile 6.73. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(h) of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is updating the special local regulations and permanent safety zones in Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone for annual recurring marine events. When enforced, these special local regulations and safety zones will restrict vessels from portions of water areas during certain annually recurring events. The special local regulations and safety zones are intended to expedite public notification and ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with certain maritime events.
This rule is effective without actual notice on September 21, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 26, 2017 through September 21, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Marine Science Technician Chris Bains, Sector Northern New England Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 207-347-5003, email
On April 13, 2017, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the
The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce administrative overhead, expedite public notification of events, and ensure the protection of the maritime public during marine events in the Sector Northern New England area.
We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard issues this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. This rule updates the tables of annual recurring events in the existing regulation for the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. The tables provide the event name, sponsor, and type, as well as approximate times, dates, and locations of the events. Advanced public notification of specific times, dates, regulated areas, and enforcement periods for each event will be provided through appropriate means, which may include, the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and a Notice of Enforcement published in the
As noted above, we received no comments to the NPRM published April 13, 2017. The single change from the NPRM is the modification of one position to the Colchester Triathlon held in Colchester, VT. The Coast Guard has adjusted a mistake to a position made in the NPRM that went unnoticed until after publication in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and for promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reason: The Coast Guard is only modifying existing regulations to account for new information.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated waters may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary 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. This rule involves water activities including swimming events, boat races, and fireworks displays. The regulatory actions related to these activities are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)(Safety Zones) and (34)(h)(Special Local Regulations) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this finding is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233
The revision reads as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The revision reads as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge which carries Margate Boulevard across the NJICW (Beach Thorofare), mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate urgent bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from September 21, 2017 through 7 p.m. on Sunday, October 8, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on Monday September 18, 2017 until September 21, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0855] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email
The Margate Bridge Company, owner and operator of the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge that carries Margate Boulevard across the NJICW (Beach Thorofare), mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to facilitate urgent maintenance of the structural steel of the bascule spans of the double bascule drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited clearance in the open position.
The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on Monday, September 18, 2017, through 7 p.m. on Sunday, September 24, 2017, and from 7 a.m. on Monday, October 2, 2017, through 7 p.m. on Sunday, October 8, 2017.
The Beach Thorofare is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels will not be able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position, as two construction barges will be occupying the navigation channel during the closure periods. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the community to participate in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation One Walk event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. through 11 a.m. on October 1, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0889, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510-437-3516; email
The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 9 a.m. through 11 a.m. on October 1, 2017, to allow the community to participate in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation One Walk event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the SR 401 Drawbridge, mile 5.5 at Port Canaveral, Florida. The deviation is necessary to allow fuel trucks a less restrictive access to and from Port Canaveral to pick up and deliver fuel due to the critical fuel supply in the region. With the passage of Hurricane Irma, delivery of fuel from the port is critical to the local community and beyond.
This deviation is effective without actual notice from September 21, 2017 through 6 a.m. on October 14, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on September 18, 2017, until October 12, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0161 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email LT Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 904-714-7616, email
On April 25, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Canaveral Barge Canal, Canaveral, FL in the
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass through the bridge in closed positions. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters within 50-yards of either side of the Route 73 Weskeag Bridge, at mile 0.1 on the Weskeag River, in South Thomaston, Maine. The safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards created by the demolition, subsequent removal, and replacement of the Route 73 Weskeag Bridge. When enforced, this regulation prohibits entry of vessels or people into the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Northern New England or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from October 1, 2017 through December 1, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Matthew Odom, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, telephone 207-347-5015, email
On July 27, 2017, Sector Northern New England was made aware of the Route 73 Weskeag Bridge replacement project, which spans the Weskeag River in South Thomaston, Maine. The COTP Sector Northern New England has determined that the potential hazards associated with the bridge replacement project will be a safety concern for anyone within the work area.
The project is scheduled to begin on October 1, 2017 and be completed by December 1, 2017. During this project, removal and replacement of the bridge will take place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The safety zone will be enforced during different periods during the bridge demolition or when other hazards to navigation arise during the new bridge construction. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) 24 hours in advance to any period of enforcement or as soon as practicable in response to an emergency. If the project is completed prior to December 1, 2017, enforcement of the safety zone will be suspended and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The late finalization of project details did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the construction work is set to begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule as it is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the bridge replacement project beginning on October 1, 2017.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Sector Northern New England has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge replacement project starting on October 1, 2017 and continuing through December 1, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within the work zone. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the safety zone while the bridge replacement project is completed.
This rule establishes a safety zone from October 1, 2017 through December 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters from surface to bottom of 50 yards to either side of the Weskeag Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended to protect people, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the bridge replacement project. When enforced, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive order 13771.
The Coast Guard has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone only
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A., this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone that will prohibit entry within 50 yards of the Weskeag Bridge during its removal and replacement. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration for Categorically Excluded Actions will be available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port
(2) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone shall comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or a COTP representative. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within the safety zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or a COTP representative.
(3) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via Channel 16 (VHF-FM) or (207) 741-5465 (Sector Northern New England Command Center).
(d)
(e)
(f)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters on the Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 96.0 and MM 96.5. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near New Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7:50 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; at (504) 365-2281, email
The Coast Guard preceded this final rule with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was published in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display from 7:50 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 2017 will present a safety concern for all navigable waters on the Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 96.0 and MM 96.5. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life and vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.
During the comment period, one comment was received. The commenter made a general statement that he or she was against “safe spaces”. The commenter did not indicate if he or she was against the proposed safety zone or the reasons for it. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
The rule establishes a safety zone from 7:50 p.m. through 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 2017. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters between MM 96.0 and 96.5 on the Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety zone will be enforced for a period of one hour on one day on one half of one mile of navigable waters. Vessel traffic will be able to safely navigate through the affected area before and after the scheduled event. Entry into the safety zones established through this rulemaking may be requested from the COTP or a designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour on one day extending one half of one mile that will prohibit entry on all navigable waters of the Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 96.0 and MM 96.5. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 37 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The applicable review periods for the PMNs submitted for these 37 chemical substances all ended prior to June 22, 2016 (
This rule is effective on November 20, 2017. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. (e.s.t.) on October 5, 2017.
Written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs must be received on or before October 23, 2017 (see Unit VI. of the
For additional information on related reporting requirement dates, see Units I.A., VI., and VII. of the
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0331, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule on or after October 23, 2017 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
EPA is promulgating these SNURs using direct final procedures. These SNURs will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture or processing of a chemical substance for any activity designated by these SNURs as a significant new use. Receipt of such notices allows EPA to assess risks that may be presented by the intended uses and, if appropriate, to regulate the proposed use before it occurs. Additional rationale and background to these rules are more fully set out in the preamble to EPA's first direct final SNUR published in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(i)). TSCA furthermore prohibits such manufacturing or processing from commencing until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(ii)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the 37 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 37 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) consent order or, for non-TSCA section 5(e) SNURs, the basis for the SNUR (
• Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VIII. for more information).
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.
The regulatory text section of this rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits (
This rule includes 6 PMN substances that are subject to “risk-based” consent orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) where EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Those consent orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The so-called “TSCA section 5(e) SNURs” on these PMN substances are promulgated pursuant to § 721.160, and are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent orders. The TSCA section 5(e) SNURs designate as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the corresponding consent orders.
Where EPA determined that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health via inhalation exposure, the underlying TSCA section 5(e) consent order usually requires, among other things, that potentially exposed employees wear specified respirators unless actual measurements of the workplace air show that air-borne concentrations of the PMN substance are below a New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL) that is established by EPA to provide adequate protection to human health. In addition
This rule also includes SNURs on 31 PMN substances that are not subject to consent orders under TSCA section 5(e). These cases completed Agency review prior to June 22, 2016. Under TSCA, prior to the enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on June 22, 2016, EPA did not find that the use scenario described in the PMN triggered the determinations set forth under TSCA section 5(e). However, EPA does believe that certain changes from the use scenario described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby constituting a “significant new use.” These so-called “non-TSCA section 5(e) SNURs” are promulgated pursuant to § 721.170. EPA has determined that every activity designated as a “significant new use” in all non-TSCA section-5(e) SNURs issued under § 721.170 satisfies the two requirements stipulated in § 721.170(c)(2),
1. Use of personal protective equipment including a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 10 or compliance with a NCEL of 1.0 parts per million (ppm) as an 8-hour time-weighted average, when there is a potential for inhalation exposures.
2. Hazard communication. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS).
3. No domestic manufacture of the PMN substance.
4. Processing (including filling of hand-held fire extinguishers or fire extinguishing systems) of the PMN substance in an enclosed process.
5. Use only as either (1) total flooding agent in unoccupied spaces, specifically engine nacelles and auxiliary power units (APUs) in aircraft; or (2) streaming fire extinguishing agent for use only in handheld extinguishers in aircraft.
The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment including impervious gloves (where there is a potential for dermal exposures) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 10 (where there is a potential for dermal or inhalation exposures) or compliance with a NCEL of 0.5 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted average.
2. Manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order.
3. No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters concentrations that exceed 20 ppb.
The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Risk notification. If as a result of the test data required, the company becomes aware that the PMN substances may present a risk of injury to human health or the environment, the company must incorporate this new information, and any information on methods for protecting against such risk into an SDS, within 90 days.
2. Submission of certain toxicity, physical-chemical property, and environmental fate testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limits as specified in the consent order.
The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these measures.
1. Risk notification. If as a result of the test data required, the company becomes aware that the PMN substances may present a risk of injury to human health or the environment, the company must incorporate this new information, and any information on methods for protecting against such risk into an SDS, within 90 days.
2. Submission of certain toxicity, physical-chemical property, and environmental fate testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limits as specified in the consent order.
3. No releases of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States.
The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
1. Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridges (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure).
2. Processing and use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order.
3. Processing and use of the PMN substance only as an aqueous slurry, wet form, or a contained dry form as described in the PMN.
4. No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters and disposal of the PMN substance only by landfill or incineration.
The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any substantial combined production volume increase could result in exposures which may cause serious human health and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(1)(i)(D), (b)(3)(iii), and (b)(4)(iv).
1. Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridges (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure).
2. Submission of a dustiness test within six months of notice of commencement.
3. Submission of a 90-day chronic inhalation study prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the consent order.
4. Processing and use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order including no application method that generates a vapor, mist or aerosol unless the application method occurs in an enclosed process.
5. No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters and disposal of the PMN substance only by landfill or incineration.
The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that for 6 of the 37 chemical substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) consent orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. The SNUR provisions for these chemical substances are consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. These SNURs are promulgated pursuant to § 14;721.160 (see Unit VI.).
In the other 31 cases, where the uses are not regulated under a TSCA section 5(e) consent order, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 14;721.170 were met, as discussed in Unit IV.
EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this rule:
• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA will be able to either determine that the prospective manufacture or processing is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, or to take necessary regulatory action associated with any other determination, before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs.
• EPA will ensure that all manufacturers and processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
EPA is issuing these SNURs as a direct final rule, as described in § 14;721.160(c)(3) and § 14;721.170(d)(4). In accordance with § 14;721.160(c)(3)(ii) and § 14;721.170(d)(4)(i)(B), the effective date of this rule is November 20, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments before October 23, 2017.
If EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs before October 23, 2017, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date. EPA will then issue a proposed SNUR for the chemical substance(s) on which adverse or critical comments were received, providing a 30-day period for public comment.
This rule establishes SNURs for a number of chemical substances. Any person who submits adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, must identify the chemical substance and the new use to which it applies. EPA will not withdraw a SNUR for a chemical substance not identified in the comment.
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.
When chemical substances identified in this rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA section 5(e) consent orders have been issued for 6 chemical substances, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders from undertaking activities which would be designated as significant new uses. The identities of 26 of the 37 chemical substances subject to this rule have been claimed as confidential and EPA has received no post-PMN
Therefore, EPA designates June 1, 2017 which is the date of public release by posting on EPA's Web site, as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. This designation varies slightly from EPA's past practice of designating the date of
Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires. If such a person met the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person would be considered exempt from the requirements of the SNUR. Consult the
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular new information (
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule covering the chemical
In the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders for several of the chemical substances regulated under this rule, EPA has established production volume limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. Under recent TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, each PMN submitter is required to submit each study at least 14 weeks (earlier TSCA section 5(e) consent orders required submissions at least 12 weeks) before reaching the specified production limit. Listings of the tests specified in the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders are included in Unit IV. The SNURs contain the same production volume limits as the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture or processing.
The recommended tests specified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at § 721.1725(b)(1).
Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a
If EPA determines that the use identified in the
According to § 14;721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and § 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0331.
This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs, or TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this action.
This action is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit XI. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(
(
(
(
(
(B) As an alternative to the respirator requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, a manufacturer or processor may choose to follow the new chemical exposure limit (NCEL) provision listed in the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for this substance. The NCEL is 1.0 parts per million (ppm) as an 8-hour time weighted average. Persons who wish to pursue NCELs as an alternative to § 721.63 respirator requirements may request to do so under § 721.30. Persons whose § 721.30 requests to use the NCELs approach are approved by EPA will be required to follow NCELs provisions comparable to those contained in the corresponding TSCA section 5(e) consent order.
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(
(
(
(
(
(B) As an alternative to the respirator requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, a manufacturer or processor may choose to follow the new chemical exposure limit (NCEL) provision listed in the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for this substance. The NCEL is 0.5 parts per million (ppm) as an 8-hour time weighted average. Persons who wish to pursue NCELs as an alternative to § 721.63 respirator requirements may request to do so under § 721.30. Persons whose § 721.30 requests to use the NCELs approach are approved by EPA will be required to follow NCELs provisions comparable to those
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(A) If as a result of the test data required under TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the substance, the employer becomes aware that the substances may present a risk of injury to human health or the environment, the employer must incorporate this new information, and any information on methods for protecting against such risk, into an SDS as described in § 721.72(c) within 90 days from the time the employer becomes aware of the new information. If the substance is not being manufactured, processed, or used in the employer's workplace, the employer must add the new information to an SDS before the substance is reintroduced into the workplace.
(B) The employer must ensure that persons who will receive the PMN substance from the employer, or who have received the PMN substance from the employer within 5 years from the date the employer becomes aware of the new information described in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, are provided an SDS containing the information required under paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section within 90 days from the time the employer becomes aware of the new information.
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(i)
(A) If as a result of the test data required under TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the substance, the employer becomes aware that the substances may present a risk of injury to human health or the environment, the employer must incorporate this new information, and any information on methods for protecting against such risk, into an SDS as described in § 721.72(c) within 90 days from the time the employer becomes aware of the new information. If the substance is not being manufactured, processed, or used in the employer's workplace, the employer must add the new information to an SDS before the substance is reintroduced into the workplace.
(B) The employer must ensure that persons who will receive the PMN substance from the employer, or who have received the PMN substance from the employer within 5 years from the date the employer becomes aware of the new information described in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section, are provided an SDS containing the information required under paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section within 90 days from the time the employer becomes aware of the new information.
(ii)
(iii)
(2) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) The significant new uses for any use other than as described in PMN-16-14:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substances identified generically as dialkylamino alkylamide inner salt (PMNs P-16-136, P-16-139 and P-16-140) are subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The SIP revision consists of the following: 2011 calendar year ozone precursor emission inventories for volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NO
This final rule is effective on October 23, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0044. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, telephone number (212) 637-3381, or by email at
The supplementary Information section is arranged as follows:
The New Jersey emissions inventory SIP revision will ensure that the requirements for emissions inventory measures and reporting are adequately met. To comply with the emissions inventory requirements, New Jersey submitted a complete inventory containing point, area, on-road, and non-road mobile source data, and accompanying documentation. EPA is approving the SIP revision submittal as meeting the essential reporting requirements for emission inventories. EPA has also determined that the SIP revision meets the requirements for emission inventories in accordance with EPA guidance.
Therefore, EPA is approving a revision to the New Jersey SIP which pertains to the following: 2011 calendar year summer season daily and annual ozone precursor emission inventories for VOC, NO
EPA did not receive any comments on the April 10, 2017 proposed approval of New Jersey's 2011 emissions inventory.
EPA is approving a revision to the New Jersey SIP which pertains to the following: 2011 calendar year summer season daily and annual ozone precursor emission inventories for VOC, NO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 20, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available control technology (RACT) approval for a volatile organic compound (VOC) emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on October 23, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025. All documents in the docket are listed on the
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. 617-918-1584, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On July 3, 2017, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (82 FR 30815) and Direct Final Rulemaking (DFRN) (82 FR 30747) proposing to approve and approving, respectively, a RACT approval for a VOC emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. The RACT approval was submitted by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
A detailed discussion of Rhode Island's August 8, 2003 SIP revision and February 20, 2004 amendment, and EPA's rationale for approving the SIP revision were provided in the DFRN and will not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the public comment we received.
EPA received one adverse comment on its July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30815) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP, a RACT approval effective July 16, 2003, and a RACT approval amendment effective February 11, 2004, for US Watercraft, LLC. The RACT approval and amendment were submitted by the RI DEM to EPA as a SIP revision on August 8, 2003, and February 20, 2004, respectively. EPA is also removing the previously approved consent agreement File No. 90-1-AP issued to TPI from the Rhode Island SIP.
It should be noted that subsequent to RI DEM's submittal of its SIP revision and amendment in 2003 and 2004, respectively, EPA later issued a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481). RI DEM has not yet addressed this CTG. On February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9158), EPA issued a Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Rhode Island's failure to submit a SIP revision to satisfy the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.
At this time, EPA is taking no action with regard to Rhode Island's obligation to address the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials since Rhode Island has not yet taken formal action to address this CTG. With this action, we are approving the revised RACT approval for US Watercraft as meeting CAA section 110(l) because the SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Moreover, approving this RACT approval into the Rhode Island SIP will strengthen the SIP as it is designed to control VOC emissions. However, Rhode Island is still obligated to submit a formal SIP revision to EPA detailing how the State is addressing the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG for any and all sources in the State covered by that CTG.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the RACT Approval for US Watercraft, LLC described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 20, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(d) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the 112(l) program. The submission revises Kansas' construction permit rules. Specifically, these revisions implement the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter; clarify and refine applicable criteria for sources subject to the construction permitting program; update the construction permitting program fee structure and schedule; and make minor revisions and corrections. Approval of these revisions will not impact air quality, ensures consistency between the State and Federally-approved rules, and ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules.
This direct final rule will be effective November 20, 2017, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 23, 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-2017-0512, to
Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7164, 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 revisions to the Kansas SIP and 112(l) program submission received on December 5, 2016. The SIP submission requests revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300 that include: Implementing revisions to include fine particulate matter (PM
EPA is approving requested revisions to the Kansas SIP relating to the following:
• Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-300. Applicability; and
• Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-304. Fees.
EPA has conducted analysis on the state's revisions and has found that the revisions would not impact air quality, ensures consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules. Additional information on the EPA's analysis can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) included in this docket.
EPA is also taking direct final action to approve a portion of K.A.R. 28-19-300 under the 112(l) program pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, as requested by the State of Kansas on April 19, 2017. The State of Kansas is requesting that the applicable portions of K.A.R. 28-19-300 pertaining to limiting the potential-to-emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) be approved under CAA 112(l) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, in addition to being approved under the SIP.
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission 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 revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and and implementing regulations.
EPA is taking direct final action to amend the Kansas SIP and 112(l) program by approving the State's request to amend K.A.R. 28-19-300 Construction Permits and Approvals—Applicability and to amend the Kansas SIP by approving K.A.R. 28-19-304 Construction Permits and Approvals—Fees. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between state and Federally-approved rules. The EPA has determined that these changes will not adversely impact air quality.
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
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Kansas Regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
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 direct 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
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing minor technical amendments to Procedure 6 that were proposed in the
This final rule is effective on October 23, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0696. All documents in the docket are listed at
Mr. Raymond Merrill, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-5225; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address:
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
The major entities that would potentially be affected by Procedure 6 for gaseous HCl CEMS are those entities that are required to install a new HCl CEMS, relocate an existing HCl CEMS, or replace an existing HCl CEMS under any applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63 that were initially accepted following requirements in PS 18 of appendix B in part 60. Table 1 of this preamble lists the current federal rules by subpart and the corresponding source categories to which Procedure 6 potentially would apply.
The requirements of Procedure 6 may also apply to stationary sources located in a state, district, reservation, or territory that adopts Procedure 6 in its implementation plan.
Table 2 lists the corresponding North American Industry Classification (NAICS) codes for the source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
Tables 1 and 2 are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather they provide a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the potential applicability of Procedure 6 to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air quality management, measurement standards and implementation, etc. Following publication in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a
On July 7, 2015, the EPA published Procedure 6, which is a companion to PS 18. Procedure 6 specifies the minimum QA requirements necessary for control and assessment of the quality of CEMS data submitted to the EPA used for HCl emissions compliance determination at stationary sources (80 FR 38628). Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 are applicable to the evaluation of HCl continuous monitoring instruments for Portland cement facilities, electric generating units and industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters. After publication of Procedure 6, certain minor inconsistencies with treatment of data above span and how to calculate the error of CEMS accuracy using dynamic spiking were identified. The EPA proposed to correct the minor inconsistencies in PS 18 and Procedure 6 through a direct final action titled, “Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6.” 81 FR 31515 (May 19, 2016). One substantive comment was received regarding changes to Procedure 6. The EPA finalized PS 18 and withdrew Procedure 6 (81 FR 52348). With this action, the EPA is responding to that comment and finalizing corrections to Procedure 6.
This action finalizes changes to Procedure 6 that were proposed on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31577), and responds to the substantive comment received in response to that proposal by:
(1) Clarifying that the QA for data above span is subject to the specific requirements in applicable rules or permits, which supersede the general requirements in Procedure 6 (section 4.1.5);
(2) Clarifying the time that triggers conducting an above span CEMS response check (section 4.1.5.1);
(3) Correcting the incomplete reference to equations used to calculate dynamic spiking error (section 5.2.4.2).
A commenter stated that one of the revisions to Procedure 6, as proposed by EPA on May 19, 2016, appeared to significantly change the applicability of certain QA requirements, contending that to do so would be inconsistent with the EPA's justification for the QA procedure originally promulgated in the 2015 final rule (80 FR 38628; July 7, 2015). The EPA agrees with the commenter that the obligation to follow the procedure for treatment of data above span should remain as originally promulgated: As existing only where required by an applicable regulation. The EPA's intent was not to enlarge the applicability of Procedure 6 for treatment of data above span, but simply to make clear that (to the extent this procedure even applies) it is furthermore superseded if alternate terms are specified in another applicable rule or permit. Thus, for example, where an applicable rule or permit accommodates a concentration level between 50 and 150 percent of the highest hourly concentration, during the period of measurements above span, that would be an acceptable implementation of Procedure 6, notwithstanding the default specification of section 4.1.5.1.1 that concentrations must be between 75 percent and 125 percent of the highest hourly concentration. The EPA has revised its proposed change to section 4.1.5 accordingly. It remains the case that the procedure under section 4.1.5 is not required unless separately mandated by an applicable regulation. The EPA also notes that with this amendment to section 4.1.5, the proposed amendment to section 4.1.5.3 (specifically noting that section 4.1.5.3 would not apply if “otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit”) is superfluous. The caveat previously proposed specifically for section 4.1.5.3 should apply to
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action provides performance criteria and QA test procedures for assessing the acceptability of HCl CEMS performance and data quality. These criteria and QA test procedures do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulation.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action provides facilities with an alternative to PS 15 and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy for measuring HCl, which are currently required in several rules.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action provides performance criteria and QA test procedures for assessing the acceptability of HCl CEMS performance and data quality. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a technical correction to a previously promulgated regulatory action and does not have any impact on human health or the environment. Documentation for this decision is provided in the Summary of Major Comments and Responses section of this preamble.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, Hydrogen chloride, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
4.1.5 Additional Quality Assurance for Data above Span. This procedure must be used when required by an applicable regulation and may be used when significant data above span are being collected. Furthermore, the terms of this procedure do not apply to the extent that alternate terms are otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit.
4.1.5.1 Any time the average measured concentration of HCl exceeds 150 percent of the span value for two consecutive one-hour averages, conduct the following `above span' CEMS response check.
5.2.4.2 Calculate results as described in section 6.4. To determine CEMS accuracy, you must calculate the dynamic spiking error (DSE) for each of the two upscale audit gases using Equation A5 in appendix A to PS-18 and Equation 6-3 in section 6.4 of Procedure 6 in appendix B to this part.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
This final rule adds the Polar Ship Certificate to a list of certificates that certain U.S. and foreign-flag ships will need to carry on board if they engage in international voyages in polar waters. This rule also enables the Coast Guard to authorize recognized classification societies to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on the Coast Guard's behalf. We are taking this action because the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) has been amended to require certain ships operating in Arctic or Antarctic waters to have a Polar Ship Certificate. This rule will help ensure that U.S.-flagged ships that need this certificate—commercial cargo ships greater than 500 gross tonnage and passenger ships carrying more than 12 passengers, that operate in polar waters as defined by SOLAS chapter XIV while engaged in international voyages—will be able to obtain it in a timely manner.
This final rule is effective October 23, 2017.
To view comments and material submitted in response to our proposed rule, as well as documents mentioned in this final rule preamble as being available in the docket, go to
For information about this document call or email Lieutenant Chris Rabalais, Systems Engineering Division (CG-ENG-3), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1485, email
Coast Guard regulations for inspecting and certificating vessels are located in subpart 2.01 of title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (46 CFR subpart 2.01). Section 2.01-6 in that subpart contains provisions for issuing certificates of compliance to foreign-flagged vessels. Section 2.01-25 identifies certificates required by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) on certain vessels engaged in international voyages. This section also lists SOLAS certificates the Coast Guard issues to vessels that meet applicable SOLAS requirements.
Part 8 of 46 CFR contains Coast Guard regulations for vessel inspection alternatives. Specifically, 46 CFR 8.320 identifies international certificates that the Coast Guard may authorize recognized classification societies to issue on the Coast Guard's behalf.
On November 22, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
In 2014 and 2015, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) and added its requirements to two existing IMO Conventions—SOLAS, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)—in consideration of hazards and conditions unique to polar waters, and an expected increase in traffic in Arctic and Antarctic waters. These additional hazards include navigation in ice and low temperatures, high-latitude communications and navigation, remoteness from response resources, and limited hydrographic charting. Copies of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee and Marine Environment Protection Committee resolutions discussed in this paragraph are available in the docket.
The Polar Code took effect on January 1, 2017, and applies to all vessels constructed on or after that date. Beginning on January 1, 2018, the Polar Code will also start applying to existing vessels, based upon the date their SOLAS Certificates were issued.
One of the requirements for ships subject to the Polar Code is to carry a Polar Ship Certificate pursuant to SOLAS. The Polar Ship Certificate attests that the vessel has met applicable requirements of SOLAS. As a signatory to this convention, under Article I of SOLAS, the United States has an obligation to ensure compliance with SOLAS requirements.
This rule creates a certificate that newly constructed U.S.-flagged vessels, certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I, will need in order to travel internationally within polar waters, beginning January 1, 2017. Existing vessels will need the same certificate by their first intermediate or renewal survey after January 1, 2018. U.S.-flagged vessels that do not carry a Polar Ship Certificate risk detention, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other States.
This rulemaking is necessary to allow the Coast Guard to create the new Polar Ship Certificate and add it to the list of certificates required by SOLAS in 46 CFR part 2. Also, this rule allows the Coast Guard to authorize recognized classification societies to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on the Coast Guard's behalf under 46 CFR 8.320.
Foreign-flagged vessels, certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I and operating in polar waters, are also required to carry the Polar Ship Certificate. However, their certificates will be issued by the vessel's flag state, or a person or an organization authorized by that flag state to issue the certificate. The Coast Guard will examine foreign-flagged vessels during Port State Control boardings to ensure that they are properly certificated.
The Coast Guard is authorized to regulate this subject matter under 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3316, and 3703; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, and Executive Order 12234, “Enforcement of the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea” (45 FR 58801, Sept. 5, 1980).
We received two written submissions commenting on the proposed rule published on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83786). The comments raised concerns about four specific items, which we address in this section of the preamble.
One of the comments noted concerns about wording in the proposed rule that limits requirements to vessels engaged in international voyages. On this point, the comment also cited a December 2016 Coast Guard Polar Code policy letter (CG-CVC Policy Letter Letter 16-06, available in the docket), which states that U.S.-flag vessels operating on domestic voyages to ports or places in the U.S. Arctic do not need to meet the provisions of SOLAS chapter XIV,
We decline to expand the scope of the proposed rule. The proposed rule is consistent with our view that the SOLAS convention's authority is generally limited to vessels traveling internationally. Based on the intent of the SOLAS convention to ensure safe international shipping, and SOLAS certification as part of voluntary U.S. compliance programs, the United States will not require U.S.-flagged vessels operating on domestic routes through Arctic waters to obtain a Polar Ship Certificate.
A commenter raised concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the applicability of the Polar Code in Antarctica, given that these waters are not under the jurisdiction of the United States or any other nation. The Polar Code applies to ships engaged in international voyages that are also operating in polar waters. Polar waters include both the Arctic and Antarctic waters. Therefore, a U.S.-flagged vessel that is certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I and is on an international voyage must have a Polar Ship Certificate if it enters Antarctic waters.
The same commenter also questioned our burden hour estimate for the time required by classification societies to issue the Polar Ship Certificate. The commenter said that the estimate did not include time required for technical approvals or verification of compliance with provisions of the Polar Code.
Cost estimates for verifications of compliance with the Polar Code were not included in the regulatory analysis because these hours are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking addresses the issuance of a Polar Ship Certificate, not compliance with substantive safety and environmental provisions or surveys to evaluate compliance with those provisions.
In our NPRM we used an estimate of 40 hours, which we obtained from a classification society and which includes administrative review, stamping the documents, and data input. The commenter, who also represents a classification society, gives a minimum time of 8 to 12 hours for these tasks. We have retained the more conservative 40-hour estimate.
The other hours the commenter discusses, 120 to 230 hours to complete approval work for new construction, risk assessments, and surveys, represent compliance aspects of the safety and environmental provisions of the Polar Code. Again, these compliance aspects are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
One commenter stated that the language we used in the NPRM implied that all U.S.-flagged vessels subject to the Polar Code will be required to carry a Polar Ship Certificate by January 1, 2017.
The January 1, 2017 date applies to vessels built on or after that date. Vessels built before that date need not comply until after January 1, 2018. Implementation for existing vessels is based on the first renewal or intermediate survey conducted after January 1, 2018. (
We have made no changes from the proposed regulatory text. The regulatory text in this final rule is the same as we proposed in the NPRM.
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 costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 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 final rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled
Our regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
We only received one comment on our estimates in the regulatory analysis of the proposed rule. That comment related to the number of hours used for the creation and issuance of the certificate. However, the commenter also mentioned some hour burdens that are not associated with the creation, review, and issuance of the Polar Ship certificate, and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
In preamble section IV, Discussion of Comments and Changes, we discuss this public comment regarding our estimate of the time it takes a recognized classification society to create a polar certificate—which includes reviewing, printing, stamping of the documents, and data input—and explain why we retained a more conservative estimate used in the NPRM as our primary estimate based on industry input. And as reflected in that discussion, we adopt the costs and benefits in the regulatory analysis of the proposed rule for this final rule.
This final rule adds a new Polar Ship Certificate to the list of existing SOLAS certificates that SOLAS requires to be carried on board all U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels above 500 GT ITC (the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969 or gross tonnage assigned under this system)
This rule amends 46 CFR part 2, “Vessel Inspections,” subpart 2.01, “Inspecting and Certificating of Vessels.” Specifically, we are adding the Polar Ship Certificate to § 2.01-6, “Certificates issued to foreign vessels,” and § 2.01-25, “International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea.”
Since the Coast Guard published the NPRM, two vessels in our original population of 41 have been re-flagged and are no longer U.S.-flagged vessels, and one vessel is no longer in service. In addition, this rule does not apply to domestic vessels that operate in polar waters if these vessels do not engage in international voyages. This was not distinguished in the analysis for the NPRM. Based on this factor and further analysis, the population of affected vessels is now estimated to be 23. This is the number of U.S.-flagged vessels that make international voyages in polar waters, which are generally above and below the 60 degree north and 60 degree south latitudes lines, respectively, over the past 5 years. This estimate is based on Coast Guard field data and Coast Guard databases such as the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement, the Ship Arrival Notification System, and data from the Navigation Data Center.
Of the 23 U.S.-flagged vessels that have transited polar waters during the 5-year period, some entered polar waters in the first year and not the following year, but returned in subsequent years. The opposite is also true; some vessels that did not transit polar waters in the first year of the data period did so in the following years of the data period.
Recognized classification societies granted authority from the Coast Guard under provisions of 46 CFR 8.320(a) will issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard for U.S.-flagged vessels that are classed. Although multiple classification societies could request authorization to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard, for the purpose of this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes that only one classification society will do so for the small number of classed U.S.-flagged vessels.
This rule amends 46 CFR 8.320(b) to enable recognized classification societies to request authorization under § 8.240(b), to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard. As reflected in 46 CFR 2.01-25, vessels that are not classed can apply to the local Coast Guard Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) to request the Coast Guard to issue the Polar Ship Certificate.
There are two cost elements associated with a classification society issuing a Polar Ship Certificate: The cost to review and return a signed copy of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the recognized classification society and the Coast Guard, and the cost to create the certificate once the MOA is approved by each party. As stated in 46 CFR 8.320(c), the Coast Guard will enter into an agreement with the classification society to issue international convention certificates such as the Polar Ship Certificate. In this situation, the MOA represents a delegation letter and is a standard document that allows a recognized classification society to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard.
Based on Coast Guard data from the Office of Design and Engineering Standards, we estimate it will take a recognized classification society's classification and documentation specialist 1 hour to review the MOA. There is no equivalent labor category in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for May 2016, so we used the “Business Operations Specialist, All Other” (Occupation Code 13-1199) category for Water Transportation with a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code of 483000 as a representative occupation. The mean hourly wage rate for this occupation is $37.55. Because this is an unloaded hourly wage rate, we added a load factor to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate. We used BLS' May 2016 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation databases to calculate and apply a load factor of 1.52 to obtain a loaded hourly labor rate of about $57.08 for this occupation.
We estimate the one-time cost for the classification society to review the MOA to be about $162.30, undiscounted. This cost includes a $3 postage cost to mail the signed MOA to the Coast Guard for approval and signature [($57.08 × 1 hour) + ($102.22 × 1 hour) + $3 for postage].
Based on a recognized classification society estimate, it will take approximately 40 hours to create and review the Polar Ship Certificate once the MOA is approved. We received a lower estimate of 8-to-12 hours from a commenter for work related to this task, but we are maintaining our more conservative 40-hour estimate we obtained from an industry source to specifically address hours needed to create and review the Polar Ship Certificate once the MOA is approved. As with the MOA, a classification and documentation specialist would create the certificate. We again used the “Business Operations Specialist, All Other” as a representative occupation. We estimate the one-time labor cost for a documentation specialist to create the certificate to be about $2,283.20 (40 hours
We estimate the total undiscounted cost of the rule to a recognized classification society to be about $2,445.50 ($2,283.20 document development cost + $162.30 MOA review cost). See Table 1.
There are two cost elements associated with vessel owners and operators: The fee a recognized classification society will charge a vessel owner or operator for issuing the certificate for U.S.-classed vessels only, and the cost associated with a crewmember posting the certificate onboard a vessel. Based on Coast Guard vessel data, approximately 22 percent, or about 5 out of the 23 U.S.-flagged vessels, are not classed by a recognized classification society.
The requirement for the 23 existing ships is to have the certificate by their first renewal or intermediate exam after January 1, 2018. This is a phased-in approach that will likely phase in the issuing of the certificates over a period of about 3 years. Therefore, the Coast Guard would issue the Polar Ship Certificate to vessel owners and operators of those 5 unclassed vessels as part of its routine inspection regime. A recognized classification society will issue the Polar Ship Certificate to the remaining 18 vessel owners and operators in the first, second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth year of the analysis period.
The Polar Ship Certificate is valid for a 5-year period and, after this time, the recognized classification society and the Coast Guard will issue a new Polar Ship Certificate to vessel owners and operators, depending upon whether a vessel is classed or not classed. Based on information from a recognized classification society, the cost to issue a Polar Ship Certificate is $100 if a recognized classification society issues the certificate (for 18 classed, U.S.-flagged vessels). The cost of the reissued Polar Ship Certificate is also $100; therefore, it will cost each U.S.-classed vessel owner and operator $100 after 5 years to renew the certificate, or in the sixth, seventh, and eighth year of the analysis period. We assume a 3-year phase-in period for owners and operators to obtain the certificates. For the purpose of this analysis, we assume 7 U.S.-flagged vessels owners and operators (6 classed and 1 unclassed) will obtain a certificate in the first year and 8 (6 classed and 2 unclassed) U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will obtain one in the second and third years. For reissuance, again, we assume the same 7 vessel owners and operators will obtain a certificate in the sixth year and the same 8 vessel owners and operators will obtain one in the seventh and eighth years each; we divided the population accordingly to obtain even values.
Vessel owners and operators will be required to post the certificate in a conspicuous area onboard the vessel with other applicable operating certificates. Based on the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approved collection of information entitled “Various International Agreement Safety Certificates,” (OMB control number 1625-0017), a crewmember equivalent to a U.S. Coast Guard cadet will post the Polar Ship Certificate on board a vessel. Using the Coast Guard's Commandant Instruction 7310.1R for loaded hourly wages outside of the Government, the hourly wage rate of a person outside of the Government equivalent to a cadet is $29.00. We estimate it takes a crewmember about 6 minutes, or 0.1 hours, to post the Polar Ship Certificate at a labor cost of about $2.90 per vessel ($29.00 × 0.1 hours). To post the Polar Ship Certificate, we estimate the total initial cost of the final rule to 7 U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to be about $20.30 (6 U.S. classed and 1 unclassed vessel × 0.1 hours × $29.00), regardless of whether a recognized classification society or the Coast Guard issues the Polar Ship Certificate. Owners and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels will incur this cost again in the sixth year because a crewmember will review and post the reissued certificate for the same seven vessels.
We estimate the initial cost of the rule to vessel owners and operators to be about $620.30 in the first year [(6 classed vessels × $100) + (6 classed vessels × $2.90 to post the certificate) + 1 unclassed vessel × $2.90 to post the certificate)].
We estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost to be $3,733.40 for all 23 U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators ($620.30 in the first and sixth year + $623.20 in the second, third, seventh, and eighth years of the analysis period). Table 1 shows the cost to both class society and vessel owners and operators for this rule.
We estimate the initial undiscounted cost of the final rule to a recognized classification society and to 7 (6 classed and 1 unclassed vessels) U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to be about $3,065.80 ($2,283.20 for the classification society to create the certificate + $162.30 for the classification society to review the MOA + $600 fee charged by a classification society to issue the certificate to the 6 classed vessel owners and operators + $20.30 for crewmembers of the seven classed and unclassed vessels to post the certificate). We estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost of the rule to industry to be about $6,178.90 ($3,065.80 in the first year + $623.20 in the second, third, seventh, and, eighth years + $620.30 in the sixth year). See Table 2.
We estimate the 10-year present value—or discounted cost—of the rule to industry to be between $5,082.42 and $5,652.42 at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost to be between $723.62 and $662.64 at 7- and 3- percent discount rates, respectively. See Table 2.
There are three cost elements associated with this rule for the Coast Guard: (1) A one-time cost of creating the Polar Ship Certificate and issuing it (in the initial year, second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth years) to a vessel owner or operator if a vessel is not classed by a class society; (2) reviewing the certificate onboard a vessel as part of the Coast Guard's routine inspection regime; and (3) a one-time cost of creating and sending the delegation letter or MOA to a classification society for signature.
For the 5 U.S.-flagged vessels that are not classed by a recognized classification society, the Coast Guard will issue the Polar Ship Certificate in the first through the third years and the sixth through the eighth years. Because of the phase-in period, we divided the 5 vessels evenly over 3 years. We determined that 1 vessel will receive its certificate in the first and sixth years, and 2 vessels will receive it in the second, third, seventh, and eighth year, with certificate reissuance occurring during the sixth, seventh, and eighth years. The two vessels in the second and third years are the same two vessels in the seventh and eighth years.
Based on information from the Coast Guard's Office of Vessel Compliance, we estimate it takes Coast Guard personnel with the average equivalence of a GS-15 about 40 hours to create and review a Polar Ship Certificate. Using the Commandant Instruction 7310.1R, we used an average loaded hourly wage rate of $116.00. We estimate the one-time cost for the Coast Guard to create the Polar Ship Certificate to be about $4,640.00 (40 hours × $116.00 hour).
Based on an OMB-approved collection of information (Control Number 1625-0017), we estimate it takes a Coast Guard Officer the Officer in Charge Marine Inspection (OCMI), or more specifically, a Lieutenant with the rank of an O-3, about 30 minutes, or 0.5 hours per vessel, to review the Polar Ship Certificate for validity and correctness (the Coast Guard issues and reviews the certificate at the same time during its normal inspection regime). Using the Coast Guard's Commandant Instruction 7310.1R for loaded hourly wages, an O-3 has a loaded hourly wage rate of $79.00. Therefore, we estimate the total undiscounted cost to the Government to review the Polar Ship Certificate for all 23 affected vessels to be about $908.50 ($79.00× 23 vessels × 0.5 hours), or about $39.50 per vessel.
We use the same methodology noted earlier in this preamble with owners and operators obtaining certificates over a 3-year period (7 in the first and sixth year and 8 in the second, third, seventh and eighth year), with the sixth, seventh and eighth years being the renewal years. Again, 7 inspections (6 classed and 1 unclassed) will take place in the first and sixth year, and 8 (6 classed and 2 unclassed) in the second, third, seventh, and eighth year. We estimate the first year cost to the Government to review the certificate will be about $276.50 (6 classed and 1 unclassed vessels × $39.50). The Government will incur this cost again in the sixth year when the certificate is reissued. In years
The Coast Guard will also examine the certificates of foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. ports in polar waters as part of its routine Port State Control vessel boardings. This will take place during routine Coast Guard examinations and for issuing certificates of compliance and is a part of the inspection process. Therefore, we do not estimate a cost to the Government.
This final rule will also enable a recognized classification society to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard. As a result, the Coast Guard and a recognized classification society will enter into an MOA that delegates authority to the classification society. This sets forth guidelines for cooperation between the Coast Guard and a classification society with respect to initial and subsequent inspections for certifications and periodic re-inspections or examinations of vessels of the United States, as defined by 46 U.S.C. 116.
Based on information from the Coast Guard's Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Coast Guard personnel with the average equivalence of a GS-15 will prepare the MOA for delivery to a classification society. Again, we used an average loaded hourly labor rate of $116.00 for a GS-15. We estimate it will take Government personnel about 6.25 hours to prepare and review the MOA. We estimate it will cost about $3 in postage for the Government to send the MOA to the classification society.
We estimate the total cost incurred by the Government for the MOA to be about $725.00 plus $3 for postage, or a total cost of $728.00, undiscounted (6.25 hours × $116.00 for the loaded labor rate).
We estimate the total initial cost to the Government to be about $5,644.50 ($4,640 to create and review the certificate, $276.50 to review the certificates for 6 classed and 1 unclassed U.S.-flagged vessels, and $728.00 for the MOA). We estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost to the Government to be about $7,185.00 ($5,644.50 in the initial year + $316.00 in the second, third, seventh and eighth years + $276.50 in the sixth year). We estimate the 10-year present value, or discounted cost of the rule to the Government, to be between $6374.14 and $6,805.10, using 7- and 3- percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost to be between $907.53 and $797.76, using 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. See Table 3.
We estimate the total 10-year combined undiscounted cost of the rule to industry and the Government to be about $13,364. We estimate the 10-year present value, or discounted cost of the rule to industry and the Government, to be between $11,457 and $12,458 at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost to be between $1,631 and $1,460 using the same discount rates. See Table 4.
The primary benefit of this rule is to ensure that vessel owners and operators have a valid Polar Ship Certificate on board the vessel. Without a Polar Ship Certificate, a vessel will be subject to deficiencies, detention, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other port States. Adherence to SOLAS will ensure vessels are capable of operating in the hazards and adverse weather conditions unique to polar waters.
When creating this rule, the Coast Guard considered several alternatives. The previous analysis represents the preferred alternative, which will help ensure that the United States fulfills its treaty obligations under SOLAS
The analysis for this alternative appears in this, “Regulatory Analysis,” section of this preamble.
In this alternative, the United States would take no action to issue a Polar Ship Certificate. None of the costs itemized in the preferred alternative would be incurred, as a result. However, with this alternative, the United States would not be compliant with its international legal obligations as a signatory Government to the SOLAS Convention. Additionally, the lack of appropriate certifications would likely negatively impact U.S.-flagged vessels on international voyages in polar waters of other port States. U.S.-flagged vessels could potentially be subject to deficiencies, detentions, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other port states due to the lack of proper certificates.
Because the United States would not meet its international treaty obligations in this alternative, the Coast Guard rejects this alternative.
In this alternative, the Coast Guard would implement the entire Polar Code in one regulatory effort. This would create or modify regulations throughout 46 and 33 CFR. The affected vessels, operators, and the Government will also incur the costs and impacts of the implementation of the entire Polar Code from a single regulatory effort.
The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it would considerably delay the issuance of the certificate beyond the January 1, 2017 effective date of the Polar Code. As stated previously, U.S.-flagged vessels could potentially be subject to deficiencies, detentions, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other port states due to the lack of proper certificates.
By moving forward with Alternative 1, U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will be able to obtain a Polar Ship Certificate much sooner and thus operate more efficiently in polar waters of foreign nations by avoiding adverse consequences from not having the certificate on board.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard prepared this threshold analysis that examines the impacts of the rule on small entities.
Based on our analysis of the entities affected by this rule, all of the 23 affected U.S.-flagged vessels are owned by U.S. entities. To determine which entities are small, we compiled the data used in this analysis from publicly available and proprietary sources such as Manta, ReferenceUSAGov, and Cortera, and from the affected entities' Web sites. We used available owner's business information to identify the entities' primary line of business as coded by the NAICS to find employee and revenue size information. We used this information to determine whether we should consider a business “small” by comparing it to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes.” In some cases, SBA classifies businesses on a standard either based on the number of employees or annual revenues.
We found that 12 companies own the 23 vessels that will be affected by this final rule. Of the 12 different companies, we found only one to be a small entity, or about 8 percent, based on SBA's table of small business size standards. The one small entity that we found has a primary NAICS code of 483111, or “Deep Sea Freight Transportation.”
We estimate the initial cost to each classed vessel owner and operator (small and not small) to be about $102.90 [$600/6 classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators that have their vessels classed by a class society + $17.40 (6 classed vessels × $2.90)/6 (cost for crewmembers of 6 classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to post the certificate divided by the number of U.S.-classed vessel owners and operators. Again, in the sixth year, these 6 classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will incur this cost)]. In the second and third years, the remaining 12 (6 each year) classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will incur this same cost, and again in the renewal years of seven and eight. The 5 U.S.-flagged vessel owners who own unclassed vessels will only incur a cost of $2.90 per vessel in the each of the years described above. These vessel owners and operators will incur the same cost in the first (one vessel) through third years (two vessels in the second and third year each) and sixth (the same vessel as in the first year) through eighth years (the same two vessels as in the second and third year in the seventh and eighth year each) of the analysis period. See Table 5.
Based on the databases that we searched, the only small entity that we found in our analysis did not have revenue information, but had employee information. This vessel owned by the small entity is a classed vessel, which means the owner of this vessel will incur a cost of $102.90 in the initial year and again in the sixth year of the analysis period when the reissuance of the certificate takes place. We believe the estimated impact on the affected entity is not a significant economic impact.
Based on the preceding analysis and noting that the NPRM received no public comments suggesting this rule would be a significant economic impact on small entities, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) requires that the Coast Guard consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This action amends the existing information collection requirements that were previously approved under OMB Control Number 1625-0017.
As defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), “collection of information” comprises reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar actions. The title and description of the information collections, a description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection.
The summary of revised 1625-0017 collection follows:
SOLAS currently requires one or more of the following certificates to be carried on onboard certain passenger and cargo ships engaged in international voyages (46 CFR 2.01-25):
(1) Passenger Ship Safety Certificate and Record.
(2) Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate.
(3) Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate and Record.
(4) Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate (issued by Federal Communications Commission (FCC)).
(5) Nuclear Passenger Ship Safety Certificate.
(6) Nuclear Cargo Ship Safety Certificate.
(7) Safety Management Certificate.
(8) International Ship Security Certificate.
(9) High-Speed Craft Safety Certificate.
The Coast Guard is adding the Polar Ship Certificate to the list of certificates that it can issue.
All mechanically propelled passenger vessels carrying more than 12 passengers that engage in international voyages and all mechanically propelled cargo vessels of more than 500 GT ITC that engage in international voyages and operate within polar waters as defined by the Polar Code will be required to have the Polar Ship Certificate. The Polar Ship Certificate is valid for 5 years.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure that U.S. marine inspectors can issue certificates required by SOLAS Polar Code provisions and that these certificates are being carried on all covered vessels. Additionally, this rulemaking will add the Polar Ship Certificate to the list of certificates that classification societies can issue on behalf of the Coast Guard in consideration of hazards and conditions unique to polar waters and a potential increase in traffic in Arctic and Antarctic waters. These additional hazards include navigation in ice and low temperatures, high latitude communications and navigation, remoteness from response resources, and limited hydrographic charting.
We calculate the hour burden on an annual basis to review and post the Polar Ship Certificate, which takes into account the reissuance of the certificate every fifth year. The estimated burden is 1/10 of an hour or 6 minutes. About 5 vessels (23 total vessels/5 years) annually equates to 30 minutes or 0.5 hours for the hour burden. Equivalently, 7 classed and unclassed U.S.-flagged vessels (6 classed and 1 unclassed) × 6 minutes in the first and sixth years + 8 classed and unclassed U.S.-flagged vessels (6 classed and 2 unclassed) × 6 minutes in the second, third, seventh and eighth year for a total of 276 minutes divided by 46 vessels (7 in the first and sixth years and 8 in the second, third, seventh, and eighth year of the analysis period). Because vessel owners and operators will have 3 years to obtain a certificate, we divided the population essentially into thirds, with 7 in the first and sixth years and 8 in the second, third, and seventh and eighth years.
As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), we will submit a copy of this rule to OMB for its review of the collection of information.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the Coast Guard can enforce the collection of information requirements in this rule, OMB will have to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements as described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that Coast Guard regulations regarding vessel design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning issued under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 are within fields foreclosed from regulation by the States.
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 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 will 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 will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
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 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 will be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus 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 concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration
This rule involves: (1) Adding a Polar Ship Certificate to the list of certificates required, if applicable, by SOLAS; and (2) adding the Polar Ship Certificate to the list of SOLAS certificates that the Coast Guard is allowed to authorize recognized classification societies to issue on behalf of the Coast Guard. This action constitutes editorial or procedural changes concerning vessel documentation requirements (that is, issuance of Polar Ship Certificates) and the delegation of authority for issuing such certificates. Thus, as reflected in the Record of Environmental Consideration, this rule is categorically excluded under chapter 2, Section B, Paragraph 2 Categorical Exclusions (CEs) and Figure 2-1 (Coast Guard Categorical Exclusions), paragraphs (34)(a), (b), and (d) of COMDTINST M16475.1D. This rule promotes the Coast Guard's maritime safety and environmental protection missions.
Marine Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR parts 2 and 8 as follows:
Sec. 622, Pub. L. 111-281; 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1903; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2110, 3306, 3703; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(77), (90), (92)(a), (92)(b); E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277, sec. 1-105.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(x) Polar Ship Certificate.
(2) * * *
(x) Polar Ship Certificate.
33 U.S.C. 1231, 1903, 1904, 3803 and 3821; 46 U.S.C. 3103, 3306, 3316, and 3703; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 and Aug. 8, 2011 Delegation of Authority, Anti-Fouling Systems.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(15) Polar Ship Certificate.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has passed, and the President has signed, Public Law 115-22, a resolution of disapproval of the rule that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) submitted pursuant to such Act relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services.” By operation of the Congressional Review Act, the rule submitted by the FCC shall be treated as if it had never taken effect. However, because the Congressional Review Act does not direct the Office of the Federal Register to remove the voided regulatory text and reissue the pre-existing regulatory text, the FCC issues this document to effect the removal of any amendments, deletions, or other modifications made by the nullified rule, and the reversion to the text of the regulations in effect immediately prior to the effect date of the Report and Order relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services.”
This action is effective September 21, 2017.
For further information about this proceeding, please contact Melissa Kirkel, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-1580.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, adopted on October 27, 2016 in WC Docket No. 16-106, FCC 16-148, which amended the rules under 47 CFR part 64, subpart U. It published a summary of the Report and Order on December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87274), and thereafter submitted it to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). On March 23, 2017, the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res. 34) of the Report and Order under the Congressional Review Act. The House of Representatives then passed S.J. Res. 34 on March 28, 2017. President Trump signed the resolution into law as Public Law 115-22 on April 3, 2017. Therefore, under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, the Report and Order shall be “treated as though such a rule had never taken effect.” 5 U.S.C. 801(f).
However, because the CRA does not include direction regarding the removal, by the Office of the Federal Register or otherwise, of the voided language from the Code of Federal Regulations, the FCC must publish this document to effect the removal of the voided text. This document will enable the Office of the Federal Register to effectuate congressional intent to remove the voided text of the rules adopted in the Report and Order as if it had never taken effect, and to restore the previous language in 47 CFR part 64, subpart U and prior state of the Code of Federal Regulations.
This action is not an exercise of the FCC's rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, because
Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 276, 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(a) Any telecommunications carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI for the purpose of providing or marketing service offerings among the categories of service (
(1) If a telecommunications carrier provides different categories of service, and a customer subscribes to more than one category of service offered by the carrier, the carrier is permitted to share CPNI among the carrier's affiliated entities that provide a service offering to the customer.
(2) If a telecommunications carrier provides different categories of service, but a customer does not subscribe to more than one offering by the carrier, the carrier is not permitted to share CPNI with its affiliates, except as provided in § 64.2007(b).
(b) A telecommunications carrier may not use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI to market to a customer service offerings that are within a category of service to which the subscriber does not already subscribe from that carrier, unless that carrier has customer approval to do so, except as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(1) A wireless provider may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI derived from its provision of CMRS, without customer approval, for the provision of CPE and information service(s). A wireline carrier may use, disclose or permit access to CPNI derived from its provision of local exchange service or interexchange service, without customer approval, for the provision of CPE and call answering, voice mail or messaging, voice storage and retrieval services, fax store and forward, and protocol conversion.
(2) A telecommunications carrier may not use, disclose or permit access to CPNI to identify or track customers that call competing service providers. For example, a local exchange carrier may not use local service CPNI to track all customers that call local service competitors.
(c) A telecommunications carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI, without customer approval, as described in this paragraph (c).
(1) A telecommunications carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI, without customer approval, in its provision of inside wiring installation, maintenance, and repair services.
(2) CMRS providers may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI for the purpose of conducting research on the health effects of CMRS.
(3) LECs, CMRS providers, and entities that provide interconnected VoIP service as that term is defined in § 9.3 of this chapter, may use CPNI, without customer approval, to market services formerly known as adjunct-to-basic services, such as, but not limited to, speed dialing, computer-provided directory assistance, call monitoring, call tracing, call blocking, call return, repeat dialing, call tracking, call waiting, caller I.D., call forwarding, and certain centrex features.
(d) A telecommunications carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services.
(a) A telecommunications carrier may obtain approval through written, oral or electronic methods.
(1) A telecommunications carrier relying on oral approval shall bear the burden of demonstrating that such approval has been given in compliance with the Commission's rules in this part.
(2) Approval or disapproval to use, disclose, or permit access to a customer's CPNI obtained by a telecommunications carrier must remain in effect until the customer revokes or limits such approval or disapproval.
(3) A telecommunications carrier must maintain records of approval, whether oral, written or electronic, for at least one year.
(b)
(a)
(2) A telecommunications carrier must maintain records of notification, whether oral, written or electronic, for at least one year.
(b) Individual notice to customers must be provided when soliciting approval to use, disclose, or permit access to customers' CPNI.
(c)
(1) The notification must state that the customer has a right, and the carrier has a duty, under federal law, to protect the confidentiality of CPNI.
(2) The notification must specify the types of information that constitute CPNI and the specific entities that will receive the CPNI, describe the purposes for which CPNI will be used, and inform the customer of his or her right to disapprove those uses, and deny or withdraw access to CPNI at any time.
(3) The notification must advise the customer of the precise steps the customer must take in order to grant or deny access to CPNI, and must clearly state that a denial of approval will not affect the provision of any services to which the customer subscribes. However, carriers may provide a brief statement, in clear and neutral language, describing consequences directly resulting from the lack of access to CPNI.
(4) The notification must be comprehensible and must not be misleading.
(5) If written notification is provided, the notice must be clearly legible, use sufficiently large type, and be placed in an area so as to be readily apparent to a customer.
(6) If any portion of a notification is translated into another language, then all portions of the notification must be translated into that language.
(7) A carrier may state in the notification that the customer's approval to use CPNI may enhance the carrier's ability to offer products and services tailored to the customer's needs. A carrier also may state in the notification that it may be compelled to disclose CPNI to any person upon affirmative written request by the customer.
(8) A carrier may not include in the notification any statement attempting to encourage a customer to freeze third-party access to CPNI.
(9) The notification must state that any approval, or denial of approval for the use of CPNI outside of the service to which the customer already subscribes from that carrier is valid until the customer affirmatively revokes or limits such approval or denial.
(10) A telecommunications carrier's solicitation for approval must be proximate to the notification of a customer's CPNI rights.
(d)
(1) Carriers must wait a 30-day minimum period of time after giving customers notice and an opportunity to opt-out before assuming customer approval to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI. A carrier may, in its discretion, provide for a longer period. Carriers must notify customers as to the applicable waiting period for a response before approval is assumed.
(i) In the case of an electronic form of notification, the waiting period shall begin to run from the date on which the notification was sent; and
(ii) In the case of notification by mail, the waiting period shall begin to run on the third day following the date that the notification was mailed.
(2) Carriers using the opt-out mechanism must provide notices to their customers every two years.
(3) Telecommunications carriers that use email to provide opt-out notices must comply with the following requirements in addition to the requirements generally applicable to notification:
(i) Carriers must obtain express, verifiable, prior approval from consumers to send notices via email regarding their service in general, or CPNI in particular;
(ii) Carriers must allow customers to reply directly to emails containing CPNI notices in order to opt-out;
(iii) Opt-out email notices that are returned to the carrier as undeliverable must be sent to the customer in another form before carriers may consider the customer to have received notice;
(iv) Carriers that use email to send CPNI notices must ensure that the subject line of the message clearly and accurately identifies the subject matter of the email; and
(v) Telecommunications carriers must make available to every customer a method to opt-out that is of no additional cost to the customer and that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Carriers may satisfy this requirement through a combination of methods, so long as all customers have the ability to opt-out at no cost and are able to effectuate that choice whenever they choose.
(e)
(f)
(2) The contents of any such notification must comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, except that telecommunications carriers may omit any of the following notice provisions if not relevant to the limited use for which the carrier seeks CPNI:
(i) Carriers need not advise customers that if they have opted-out previously, no action is needed to maintain the opt-out election;
(ii) Carriers need not advise customers that they may share CPNI with their affiliates or third parties and need not name those entities, if the limited CPNI usage will not result in use by, or disclosure to, an affiliate or third party;
(iii) Carriers need not disclose the means by which a customer can deny or withdraw future access to CPNI, so long as carriers explain to customers that the scope of the approval the carrier seeks is limited to one-time use; and
(iv) Carriers may omit disclosure of the precise steps a customer must take in order to grant or deny access to CPNI, as long as the carrier clearly communicates that the customer can deny access to his CPNI for the call.
(a) Telecommunications carriers must implement a system by which the status of a customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established prior to the use of CPNI.
(b) Telecommunications carriers must train their personnel as to when they are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and carriers must have an express disciplinary process in place.
(c) All carriers shall maintain a record, electronically or in some other manner, of their own and their affiliates' sales and marketing campaigns that use their customers' CPNI. All carriers shall maintain a record of all instances where CPNI was disclosed or provided to third parties, or where third parties were allowed access to CPNI. The record must include a description of each campaign, the specific CPNI that was used in the campaign, and what products and services were offered as a part of the campaign. Carriers shall retain the record for a minimum of one year.
(d) Telecommunications carriers must establish a supervisory review process regarding carrier compliance with the rules in this subpart for outbound marketing situations and maintain records of carrier compliance for a minimum period of one year. Specifically, sales personnel must obtain supervisory approval of any proposed outbound marketing request for customer approval.
(e) A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign and file with the Commission a compliance certificate on an annual basis. The officer must state
(f) Carriers must provide written notice within five business days to the Commission of any instance where the opt-out mechanisms do not work properly, to such a degree that consumers' inability to opt-out is more than an anomaly.
(1) The notice shall be in the form of a letter, and shall include the carrier's name, a description of the opt-out mechanism(s) used, the problem(s) experienced, the remedy proposed and when it will be/was implemented, whether the relevant state commission(s) has been notified and whether it has taken any action, a copy of the notice provided to customers, and contact information.
(2) Such notice must be submitted even if the carrier offers other methods by which consumers may opt-out.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) A telecommunications carrier shall notify law enforcement of a breach of its customers' CPNI as provided in this section. The carrier shall not notify its customers or disclose the breach publicly, whether voluntarily or under state or local law or these rules, until it has completed the process of notifying law enforcement pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) As soon as practicable, and in no event later than seven (7) business days, after reasonable determination of the breach, the telecommunications carrier shall electronically notify the United States Secret Service (USSS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a central reporting facility. The Commission will maintain a link to the reporting facility at
(1) Notwithstanding any state law to the contrary, the carrier shall not notify customers or disclose the breach to the public until 7 full business days have passed after notification to the USSS and the FBI except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
(2) If the carrier believes that there is an extraordinarily urgent need to notify any class of affected customers sooner than otherwise allowed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in order to avoid immediate and irreparable harm, it shall so indicate in its notification and may proceed to immediately notify its affected customers only after consultation with the relevant investigating agency. The carrier shall cooperate with the relevant investigating agency's request to minimize any adverse effects of such customer notification.
(3) If the relevant investigating agency determines that public disclosure or notice to customers would impede or compromise an ongoing or potential criminal investigation or national security, such agency may direct the carrier not to so disclose or notify for an initial period of up to 30 days. Such
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) This section does not supersede any statute, regulation, order, or interpretation in any State, except to the extent that such statute, regulation, order, or interpretation is inconsistent with the provisions of this section, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS 2017-0026, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions please contact: Debra L. Danisek (202) 344-1610, Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy issues please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to concurrently establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records” and this notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.
The CIRS system of records is owned by CBP's Office of Intelligence (OI). CIRS contains information collected by CBP to support CBP's law enforcement intelligence mission. This information includes raw intelligence information collected by CBP's OI, public source information, and information initially collected by CBP pursuant to its immigration and customs authorities. This information is analyzed and incorporated into intelligence products. CBP currently uses the Analytical Framework for Intelligence (AFI) and the Intelligence Reporting System (IRS) information technology (IT) systems to facilitate the development of finished intelligence products. These products are disseminated to various stakeholders including CBP executive management, CBP operational units, various government agencies, and the Intelligence Community. Information collected by CBP for an intelligence purpose that is not covered by an existing DHS System of Records Notice (SORN) and is not incorporated into a finished intelligence product is retained and disseminated in accordance with this SORN. Finished intelligence products, and the information contained in those products, regardless of the original source system of that information, are also retained and disseminated in accordance with this SORN.
CIRS is the exclusive CBP SORN for finished intelligence products and any raw intelligence information, public source information, or other information collected by CBP for an intelligence purpose that is not subject to an existing DHS SORN. CIRS records were previously covered by CBP's Automated Targeting System SORN, DHS/CBP-006, 77 FR 30297 (May 22, 2012), and CBP's Analytical Framework for Intelligence System SORN, DHS/CBP-017, 77 FR 13813 (June 7, 2012). As part of the intelligence process, CBP investigators and analysts must review large amounts of data to identify and understand relationships between individuals, entities, threats, and events to generate law enforcement intelligence products that provide CBP operational units with actionable information for law enforcement purposes.
DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/CBP-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records. Some information in CIRS relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, and intelligence activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS retains the ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; and to protect the privacy of third parties. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.
In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement
A notice of system of records for DHS/CBP-024 CIRS System of Records is also published in this issue of the
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.
Freedom of information; Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
6 U.S.C. 101
78. The DHS/CBP-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The CIRS is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The CIRS contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), and (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f). When this system receives a record from another system exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), or (j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case by case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules) because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access, amend, and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(i) From subsection (g) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act relating to individuals' rights to access and amend their records contained in the system. Therefore DHS is not required to establish rules or procedures pursuant to which individuals may seek a civil remedy for the agency's: Refusal to amend a record; refusal to comply with a request for access to records; failure to maintain accurate, relevant timely and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed design criteria.
This notice announces the availability of and requests comments on the proposed design criteria for the DG Flugzeugbau GmbH model DG-1000M glider. The Administrator finds the proposed design criteria, which make up the certification basis for the DG-1000M glider, acceptable. These final design criteria will be published in the
Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0851 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Jim Rutherford, AIR-692, Federal Aviation Administration, Policy & Innovation Division, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106, telephone (816) 329-4165, facsimile (816) 329-4090.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the design criteria, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these airworthiness design criteria based on received comments.
On May 18, 2011, DG Flugzeugbau GmbH submitted an application for type validation of the DG-1000M glider in accordance with the Technical Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental Certification Between the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), dated May 05, 2011. This model is a variant of the DG-1000T powered glider and will be added to existing Type Certificate No. G20CE. The model DG-1000M is a two-seat, mid-wing, self-launching, powered glider with a retractable engine and fixed-pitch propeller. It is constructed from carbon and glass fiber reinforced plastic, and features a conventianl T-type tailplane. The glider also features a 65.6 foot (20 meter) wingspan and a maximum weight of 1,742 pounds (790 kilograms).
The EASA type certificated the DG-1000M powered glider under Type Certificate Number (No.) EASA.A.072 on March 17, 2011. The associated EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) No. EASA.A.072 defines the DG Flugzeubau GmbH certification basis submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance.
The applicable requirements for glider certification in the United States can be found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 21.17-2A, “Type Certification—Fixed-Wing Gliders (Sailplanes), Including Powered Gliders,” dated February 10, 1993. AC 21.17-2A has been the basis for certification of gliders and powered gliders in the United States for many years. AC 21.17-2A states that applicants may utilize the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-22, “Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes,” or another accepted airworthiness criteria, or a combination of both, as the accepted means for showing compliance for glider type certification.
The applicant proposed a Certification Basis based on JAR-22, amendment 6, dated August 01, 2001. In addition to JAR-22 requirements, the applicant proposed to comply with other requirements from the certification basis referenced in EASA TCDS No. EASA.A.072, including an equivalent safety finding.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
The authority citation for these airworthiness criteria is as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
Applicable Airworthiness Criteria under § 21.17(b).
Based on the Special Class provisions of § 21.17(b), the following airworthiness requirements form the FAA Certification Basis for this design:
1. 14 CFR part 21, effective February 1, 1965, including amendments 21-1 through 21-92 as applicable.
2. JAR-22, amendment 6, dated August 01, 2001.
3. EASA Equivalent Safety Finding to JAR 22.207(c)—Stall warning. (FAA issued corresponding Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) Memorandum No. ACE-07-01A, dated April 02, 2012, as an extension to an existing ELOS finding).
4. “Standards for Structural Substantiation of Sailplane and Powered Sailplane Parts Consisting of Glass or Carbon Fiber
5. “Guideline for the analysis of the electrical system for powered sailplanes,” LBA document no. I334-MS 92, issued September 15, 1992.
6. Operations allowed: VFR-Day, and “Cloud Flying” where “Cloud Flying” is considered flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) and requires an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) clearance in the United States. This is permissible provided the pilot has the appropriate rating per 14 CFR 61.3, the glider contains the necessary equipment specified under 14 CFR 91.205, and the pilot complies with IFR requirements.
7. EASA Type Certificate Data Sheet No. EASA.A.072, Issue 03, dated March 17, 2011.
8. Date of application for FAA Type Certificate: May 18, 2011.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on September 12, 2017.
In Proposed Rule document 2017-19250 appearing on pages 42752-42754 in the issue of Wednesday, September 12, 2017, make the following correction:
On page 42752, in the second column, the document heading should appear as set forth above.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH; and at Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH due to the decommissioning of Tiverton VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), cancellation of the VOR approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates at Richard Downing Airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0342; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222-5900.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH and Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH to support IFR operations at these airports.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0342/Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius) of the Holmes County Airport, Millersburg, OH. The segment within 2.7 miles either side of the 085° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.5 miles east of the airport, and within 1.8 miles either side of the 236° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8 miles southwest of the airport would be removed.
This action also proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of Richard Downing Airport, Coshocton, OH, with a segment within 2.0 miles (reduced from 4-miles) either side of the 037° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles (reduced from a 10-miles) northeast of the airport, and updating the geographic coordinates of Richard Downing Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME, cancellation of VOR approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at these airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Millersburg, Holmes County Airport, OH
(Lat. 40°32′14″ N., long. 81°57′16″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Holmes County Airport.
Richard Downing Airport, OH
(Lat. 40°18′37″ N., long. 81°51′09″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Richard Downing Airport and within 2.0 miles either side of the 037° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.6 miles northeast of the airport.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 12, 2017.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; petition for rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing that Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of glyceryl polyethylene glycol (15) ricinoleate as an emulsifier in animal food that does not include food for cats, dogs, vitamin premixes, or aquaculture.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's
You may submit comments as follows: Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729,
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2297) has been filed by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB, Stenungsunds fabriker, 444 85 Stenungsund, Sweden. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573
The potential environmental impact of this action is being reviewed. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is placing the environmental assessment (EA) submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
FDA will also place on public display, at the Dockets Management Staff, and at
If, based on its review, the Agency finds that an environmental impact statement is not required, and this petition results in a regulation, the notice of availability of the Agency's finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding will be published with the regulation in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; petition for rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing that Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB has filed a petition
Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's environmental assessment by October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows: Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comment only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729,
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2296) has been filed by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB, Stenungsunds fabriker, 444 85 Stenungsund, Sweden. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573
The potential environmental impact of this action is being reviewed. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is placing the environmental assessment (EA) submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the Dockets Management Staff for public review and comment (see
FDA will also place on public display, at the Dockets Management Staff, and at
If, based on its review, the Agency finds that an environmental impact statement is not required, and this petition results in a regulation, the notice of availability of the Agency's finding of no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding will be published with the regulation in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Kansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the 112(l) program submitted on December 5, 2016, by the State of Kansas. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Comments must be received by October 23, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0512, to
Deborah Bredehoft, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7164, or by email at
This document proposes to take action on the SIP and 112(l) program revisions submitted by the State of Kansas for Kansas Air Regionations 28-19-300, “Construction Permits and Approvals; Applicability”, and Kansas Air Regionations 28-19-304, “Construction Permits and Approvals; Fees”. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision (s) in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
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 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Department of Commerce (DOC); and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes revised implementing regulations for the 911 Grant Program, as a result of the enactment of the Next Generation 911 (NG911) Advancement Act of 2012. The 911 Grant Program provides grants to improve 911 services, E-911 services, and NG911 services and applications. NTIA and NHTSA (the Agencies) request comments on this proposed rule.
Comments must be received by November 6, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. 170420407-7407-01 by any of the following methods:
•
•
In 2009, NTIA and NHTSA issued regulations implementing the E-911 Grant Program enacted in the Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing 911 (ENHANCE 911) Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-494, codified at 47 U.S.C. 942) (74 FR 26965, June 5, 2009). Accordingly, in 2009, NTIA and NHTSA made more than $40 million in grants available to 30 States and Territories to help 911 call centers nationwide upgrade equipment and operations through the E-911 Grant Program.
In 2012, the NG911 Advancement Act of 2012 (Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, Subtitle E (codified at 47 U.S.C. 942)) enacted changes to the program. The NG911 Advancement Act provides new funding for grants to be used for the implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications; the implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services. In 2016, about $115 million from spectrum auction proceeds were deposited into the Public Safety Trust Fund and made available to NTIA and NHTSA for the 911 Grant Program.
For more than 40 years, local and state 911 call centers, also known as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), have served the public in emergencies. PSAPs receive incoming 911 calls from the public and dispatch the appropriate emergency responders, such as police, fire, and emergency medical services, to the scene of emergencies. The purpose of the 911 Grant Program is to provide federal funding to support the transition of PSAPs and their interconnecting 911 network and core services, to facilitate migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications.
There are approximately 6,000 PSAPs nationwide that are responsible for answering and processing 911 calls requiring a response from police, fire, and emergency medical services agencies.
While there are still an estimated 50 counties that are using “Basic” 911 infrastructure, the majority of State and local jurisdictions have completed the process of updating their 911 network's infrastructure since the ENHANCE 911 Act was passed in 2004.
NG911 is an initiative to modernize today's 911 services so that citizens, first responders, and 911 call-takers can use IP-based, broadband-enabled technologies to coordinate emergency responses.
Data collected by the National 911 Profile Database in 2016 show that 20 of the 46 States submitting data have adopted a statewide NG911 plan, 17 of 46 States are installing and testing basic components of the NG911 infrastructure, 10 of 45 States have 100 percent of their PSAPs connected to an Emergency Services IP Network, and 9 of 45 States are using NG911 infrastructure to receive and process 911 voice calls.
The NG911 Advancement Act modifies the 911 Grant Program to incorporate NG911 services while preserving the basic structure of the program, which provided matching grants to eligible State and local governments and Tribal Organizations for the implementation and operation of Phase II services, E-911 services, or migration to an IP-enabled emergency network.
The NG911 Advancement Act, however, broadens the eligible uses of funds from the 911 Grant Program to include: Adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications; the implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by NG911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.
States or other taxing jurisdictions that have diverted fees collected for 911 services remain ineligible for grants under the program and a State or jurisdiction that diverts fees during the term of the grant must repay all grant funds awarded.
This NPRM proposes modifications to the E-911 Grant Program regulations to implement the changes to the program enacted in the NG911 Advancement Act. With the exception of the proposed changes discussed below, the Agencies propose to retain the E-911 Grant Program regulations set forth at 47 CFR part 400. The Agencies seek comments on this proposal.
The Agencies propose to amend the heading of Part 400 from “E-911 Grant Program” to “911 Grant Program” to reflect the reauthorization of the grant program.
The Agencies propose to update the Purpose section of the 911 Grant Program regulations set forth at § 400.1 to conform to the NG911 Advancement Act.
The NG911 Advancement Act includes new definitions and makes changes to current definitions to include NG911 services in the 911 Grant Program. The Agencies therefore propose to add definitions for: 911 services, emergency call, Next Generation 911 services, and Tribal Organization. The Agencies also propose to revise the definitions for: Designated E-911 charges, E-911 Coordinator, E-911 services, integrated telecommunications services, ICO, PSAP, and State. The Agencies also propose to remove the definitions for eligible entity and Phase II E-911 services.
The E-911 Grant Program regulations only permit States to apply for grant funds on behalf of all local governments, Tribal Organizations, and PSAPs located within their jurisdiction. States were required to coordinate their applications with these entities. This approach streamlined the prior grant process and minimized administrative costs of the program, while at the same time, providing safeguards to ensure participation by local governments, Tribal Organizations, and PSAPs. While the Agencies recognize the importance of coordination between States and Tribal Organizations, directing States to coordinate with Tribal Organizations did not result in adequate funding to improve PSAPs serving tribal areas. The fact that tribes are sovereign nations and that some tribal areas cross State lines further complicated this issue.
The Agencies seek to provide equitable funding in a practical manner to ensure the most efficient use of funds to produce maximum benefit in implementing NG911 services. In this NPRM, the Agencies propose to retain the ability of States to apply for funding on behalf of all entities within their jurisdiction, but also to permit Tribal Organizations to apply directly for 911 grants under certain circumstances. The Agencies seek comment on this proposal as well as on any challenges that Tribal Organizations may face under this grant program. Specifically, the Agencies ask commenters to address the following questions:
i. If the 911 Grant Program were open to Tribal Organizations directly, would tribal PSAPs be able to meet the application requirements provided in proposed 47 CFR 400.4, including statutory requirements such as the matching requirement and non-
ii. A Tribal Organization applying for a 911 Program Grant must identify the designated State 911 Coordinator(s) and provide certifications that the Tribal Organization has not diverted designated 911 charges. What would be the challenges associated with providing this information, if any?
iii. Do the tribal PSAPs collect 911 surcharge fees and/or receive State-provided 911 surcharge funds? If so, are Tribal Organizations able to certify that tribal sub-entities are not diverting 911 surcharge fees?
iv. What other tribal PSAP issues or challenges should NHTSA and NTIA consider when determining how to involve tribal entities in this grant program?
The Agencies propose to retain, with some modifications as specified below, the general components of an application for a 911 grant. In order to accommodate applications from Tribal Organizations, the Agencies propose to reorganize § 400.4 to provide separate application requirement instructions for State (§ 400.4(a)) and Tribal Organization (§ 400.4(b)) applicants. The Agencies seek specific comments on the application of these requirements to Tribal Organizations (see questions concerning Tribal Organizations above).
The Agencies propose to retain the State 911 Plan requirements with minor modifications. Specifically, the Agencies propose to update references to E-911 and migration to an IP-enabled emergency network to reflect statutory language in the NG911 Advancement Act. In addition, the Agencies propose to remove the requirement to give priority to communities without 911 from the current E-911 Grant Program regulations, § 400.4(a)(1)(iii), to conform to the NG911 Advancement Act.
The Agencies propose similar Tribal 911 Plan requirements in § 400.4(b).
The Agencies propose to retain the project budget requirements. However, the NG911 Advancement Act increased the maximum Federal share of the total cost of a project undertaken as a result of this grant program from 50 percent to 60 percent. The Agencies propose to amend § 400.4(a) accordingly.
In 2009, the Agencies allocated E-911 Grant Program funding to all States under the assumption that all States would qualify for an award. Those preliminary funding levels were published in Appendix A to the rule.
Alternatively, the Agencies seek comment on whether a two-step application process should be used. As an example of a possible two-step application process, the Agencies would publish a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the 911 Grant Program providing additional details and deadlines for the application process. As a first step, interested State and Tribal Organization applicants would submit the required certifications set forth at Appendix A or B, respectively. Then, the Agencies would provide preliminary funding allocations for each of the States or Tribal Organizations that meets the certification requirements. As a second step, those States or Tribal Organizations would then submit a complete application packet, including a project budget based on the preliminary funding level. Because of the possibility that additional funds may become available if certain states are unable to meet the certification requirements, these States or Tribal Organizations could also include a supplemental project budget as part of their complete application packet. The Agencies seek comment on this proposed two-step application process and funding allocation determination as set forth in the proposed regulatory text.
The Agencies propose to retain the requirement for a Designated 911 Coordinator for State applicants. The NG911 Advancement Act requires, as a condition of eligibility for a non-State applicant, that the State in which it is located has designated a 911 Coordinator. Therefore, for the purpose of applications by Tribal Organizations, the Agencies propose that the Tribal Organization identify the Designated State 911 Coordinator. Although a Tribal Organization applicant would not have to designate its own 911 Coordinator, the Agencies propose that it designate a responsible official to execute the grant agreement and sign the required certifications.
The Agencies propose to retain the certification requirements in § 400.4(a)(5) with updates to allow for certification by Tribal Organizations and to reflect the statutory requirements in the NG911 Advancement Act.
The Agencies also propose to amend the 911 Grant Program regulations to provide that the deadlines for the initial and subsequent submission requirements will be contained in the NOFO.
The Agencies propose to update the Approval and Award section of the 911 Grant Program regulations set forth at § 400.5 to account for Tribal Organization applicants as described above.
The E-911 Grant Program distributed grant funds to eligible States using a formula based on State population and public road mileage. The Agencies propose to apply the same formula for distribution of grant funds to States and Territories in the new round of funding under the 911 Grant Program. As in the E-911 Grant Program, the formula will provide for a minimum grant amount of $500,000 for States and $250,000 for Territories.
In the E-911 Grant Program, population and road miles were used as the basis for the formula because 911 services are used by people, and because the ability to make any phone calls (therefore to make 911 calls) in 2009 was dependent upon the presence of copper land lines and/or cell towers. Road miles were used as a surrogate for cell tower coverage in the 2009 regulation because at that time, cell towers were the primary means of transmitting 911 calls to PSAPs, and were likely to be built along roadways—especially in rural areas. Ultimately, though, the combination of population and road miles favored urban areas over rural and remote areas.
Telecommunications technology has evolved tremendously since 2009. The placement of phone calls is now much less dependent upon the presence of copper facilities. In fact, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has observed that, as of 2015, almost 75 percent of U.S. residential customers (approximately 88 million households) no longer received telephone service over traditional copper facilities and relied increasingly on wireless, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and satellite technologies, including hybrid cell tower/satellite technology.
Additionally, research shows that rural and tribal 911 call centers face significant challenges because they serve larger geographical areas and, as a result, first responders may take more time to reach the scene of the emergency. PSAP call takers in rural areas may be required to stay on the phone longer and provide more extensive emergency instructions until help arrives.
The Agencies propose to retain the formula used for distribution in the E-911 grant program, however, given the advances in technology and the unique challenges faced by rural and remote PSAPs, the Agencies are seeking comment on whether other factors should be considered as part of the formula for distribution of grant funds or whether the current formula is the best framework to distribute the up to $110 million available in new funding for the program. Specifically, the Agencies ask commenters to address the following questions:
i. Do the existing factors of State population and public road mileage adequately account for remote and rural areas? If not, would the factor of land area, as determined by the Census Bureau, improve the accounting for rural and remote areas?
ii. Given the evolution in technology since the previous grants were awarded (
To accommodate grant awards to Tribal Organizations, the proposal would authorize the Agencies to set aside 2 percent of available grant funds for distribution to Tribal Organizations with maximum awards of no more than $250,000. The Agencies propose to allocate funding based on a formula as follows: (1) 50 percent in the ratio to which the population of the Tribal Organization bears to the total population of all Tribal Organizations, as determined by the most recent population data on American Indian/Alaska Native Reservation of Statistical Area,
The NG911 Advancement Act has broadened the eligible uses of grant funds to include: Adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications; and the implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by NG911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations. Accordingly, the Agencies propose to modify § 400.7 to include these new eligible uses. The Agencies also provide clarification on the following specific uses:
The NG911 Advancement Act, by name and intent, was established to facilitate implementation of NG911 services, and the acquisition of such NG911 services is allowable as an eligible use of 911 Grant Program funds. Some grant recipients may choose to purchase the hardware and software that perform the necessary functions enabling NG911 calls to be received, processed and dispatched and use their own staff to operate and maintain the NG911 system. Other recipients may choose to contract with vendors that own the hardware and software, and provide NG911 enabling functions as a service to State or local 911 entities. Still other recipients may choose to enter into subaward relationships with local jurisdictions to implement the purposes of the grant. The Agencies propose that any of these options, alone or in combination, would be an eligible use of grant funds. To “facilitate coordination and communication between Federal, State, and local emergency communications systems [and] emergency services personnel,” the Agencies propose that recipients be required to specify the purchase of hardware, software, and/or services that comply with current NG911 standards,
Given that the intent of this grant program is specifically to improve the technology and operation of the 911 system, the NG911 Advancement Act permits grant funds to be used for training directly related to 911 services for public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations that are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services. The Agencies seek comment on what, if any, limitations should be imposed on such costs.
As part of a three-year, multi-stakeholder effort, the National 911 program office facilitated the development of the “Recommended Minimum Training Guidelines for Telecommunicators” that identified nationally recognized, universally accepted minimum topics that can be used to train aspiring and current 911 telecommunications professionals, and to provide the foundation for ongoing professional development.
The Agencies intend to continue to allow recipients to use up to 10 percent of grant funds to cover administrative expenses incurred as a direct result of participation in the grant program. The Agencies propose allowing recipients to use a portion of the 10 percent maximum for administrative costs to perform an assessment of their current 911 system, using the “NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard” produced by the FCC's Task Force for Optimal PSAP Architecture,
The NG911 Advancement Act provides that 911 grant funds are intended to assist in implementation of NG911 systems and anticipates that jurisdictions will use fees collected by State and local governments to fund operations of 911 services.
The Agencies propose to amend the Non-compliance section of the 911 Grant Program regulations as set forth at § 400.8 to conform to the NG911 Advancement Act and to reflect the proposed ability of Tribal Organizations to apply directly for grant funds. Any applicant or grant recipient that provides a certification knowing that the information provided in the certification is false (1) will not be eligible to receive the grant; (2) must return any grant awarded under this part during the time that the certification is not valid; and (3) will not be eligible to receive any subsequent grants under this part.
In 2014, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation, among other executive branch agencies, adopted the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements (OMB Uniform Guidance).
The funds made available from the Public Safety Trust Fund for the new grants are available for obligation until September 30, 2022, and will be cancelled and returned to the Treasury no later than September 30, 2027. The recipients' right to incur costs under this part will expire as of the end of the period of performance announced in the Notice of Funding Opportunity, but in no event later than July 2, 2027. The Agencies are amending this section to reflect this new date and to update the reference to the new OMB Uniform Guidance.
It is the general intent of the Agencies that the provisions of the 911 Grant Program regulations not be waived. The Agencies, however, recognize that there may be extraordinary circumstances in which it is in the best interest of the federal government to waive program regulations. Accordingly, the Agencies propose to permit applicants or grant recipients to request waiver of any of the provisions of the program regulations and also to reserve the right for the Agencies to do so on their own initiative. The Agencies recognize that such waiver authority may only be exercised for requirements that are discretionary and not mandated by statute or other applicable law. The Agencies seek comment on this proposal.
The Agencies propose to delete and replace the Appendices from the E-911 Grant Program. In their place, the Agencies propose to insert the following Appendices to conform to the certification requirements contained in the NG911 Advancement Act and to reflect the proposed ability of Tribal Organizations to apply directly for grant funds: Appendix A (Initial Certification
Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number listed in this document in your comments. Your primary comments should be no longer than 15 pages. You may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. 170420407-7407-01 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received are a part of the public record and will be posted without change to
If you submit your comments by mail, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, you will be notified with the postcard by mail.
The Agencies will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
Comments will be available on
The Agencies' proposal would implement modifications to the E-911 Grant Program as required by the NG911 Advancement Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, Subtitle E, codified at 47 U.S.C. 942).
This rulemaking has been determined to be significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is a “transfer rule.”
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce and the Assistant Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have certified to the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The majority of potential applicants (56) for 911 grants are U.S. States and Territories, which are not “small entities” for the purposes of the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 601(5). The remaining potential grant applicants are a small number of Tribal Organizations (approximately 13) with a substantial emergency management/public safety presence within their jurisdictions. Like States, Tribal Organizations are not “small entities” for the purposes of the RFA.
This rulemaking has not been determined to be major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
This proposed rule does not contain policies having federalism implications requiring preparations of a Federalism Summary Impact Statement.
This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, as amended by Executive Order 13175. The Agencies have determined that the proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. All applicants are required to submit a copy of their applications to their designated State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) offices.
This proposed rule does not contain policies that have takings implications.
The Agencies have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13175, and have determined that the proposed action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal law. The program is voluntary and any Tribal Organization that chooses to apply and subsequently qualifies would receive grant funds. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Agencies obtained OMB approval previously for an information collection related to the annual progress reporting and closeout reporting requirements and State 911 Plans for the E-911 Grant Program, under OMB Control Number 2127-0661. At the request of NHTSA, OMB discontinued this information collection on January 31, 2012. The Agencies are seeking a new information collection that will operate as a reinstatement with change of the previously approved information collection. With the new information collection that will operate as a reinstatement with change, the Agencies propose to collect information for the State 911 Plans, and Annual Performance Reports. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Agencies have submitted the proposed new information collection that will operate as a reinstatement with change to OMB for its review. The Agencies will use the collection of information to ensure that grant recipients are effectively monitored and evaluated against the core purposes of the 911 Grant Program. The Agencies are seeking OMB approval for a period of three years.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information collection to the close of the proposed rule's comment period. Direct all written comments regarding the collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk officer for Department of Commerce, Nicholas A. Fraser. OMB may file public comments, in the form of a Notice of Action, on the collection of information within 60 days of the publication of this NPRM.
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. The program is voluntary and States and Tribal Organizations that choose to apply and qualify would receive grant funds. Thus, this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Agencies have reviewed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The Agencies have determined that this proposal would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Grant programs, Telecommunications, Emergency response capabilities (911).
47 U.S.C. 942.
This part establishes uniform application, approval, award, financial and administrative requirements for the grant program authorized under the “Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing 911 Act of 2004” (ENHANCE 911 Act), as amended by the “Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012” (NG911 Advancement Act).
As used in this part—
(1) Through voice, text, or video and related data; and
(2) Nonhuman-initiated automatic event alerts, such as alarms, telematics, or sensor data, which may also include real-time voice, text, or video communications.
(1) Provides standardized interfaces from emergency call and message services to support emergency communications;
(2) Processes all types of emergency calls, including voice, data, and multimedia information;
(3) Acquires and integrates additional emergency call data useful to call routing and handling;
(4) Delivers the emergency calls, messages, and data to the appropriate public safety answering point and other appropriate emergency entities;
(5) Supports data or video communications needs for coordinated incident response and management; and
(6) Provides broadband service to public safety answering points or other first responder entities.
In order to apply for a grant under this part, an applicant must be a State or Tribal Organization as defined in § 400.2.
(a)
(1)
(i) Details the projects and activities proposed to be funded for:
(A) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;
(B) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and
(C) Training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.
(ii) Establishes metrics and a time table for grant implementation; and
(iii) Describes the steps the applicant has taken to—
(A) Coordinate its application with local governments, Tribal Organizations, and PSAPs within the State;
(B) Ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds will be used for the direct benefit of PSAPs and not more than 10 percent of the grant funds will be used for the applicant's administrative expenses related to the 911 Grant Program; and
(C) Involve integrated telecommunications services in the implementation and delivery of 911 services, E-911 services, and Next Generation 911 services.
(2)
(i) Demonstrate that the project or activity meets the eligible use requirement in § 400.7; and
(ii) Identify the non-Federal sources, which meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, that will fund at least 40 percent of the cost; except that as provided in 48 U.S.C. 1469a, the requirement for non-Federal matching funds (including in-kind contributions) is waived for American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands for grant amounts up to $200,000.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1) Tribal Organization 911 Plan. A plan that—
(i) Details the projects and activities proposed to be funded for:
(A) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;
(B) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and
(C) Training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.
(ii) Establishes metrics and a time table for grant implementation; and
(iii) Describes the steps the applicant has taken to—
(A) Coordinate its application with PSAPs within the Tribal Organization's jurisdiction;
(B) Ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds will be used for the direct benefit of PSAPs and not more than 10 percent of the grant funds will be used for the applicant's administrative expenses related to the 911 Grant Program; and
(C) Involve integrated telecommunications services in the implementation and delivery of 911 services, E-911 services, and Next Generation 911 services.
(2)
(i) Demonstrate that the project or activity meets the eligible use requirement in § 400.7; and
(ii) Identify the allowable sources, which meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, that will fund at least 40 percent of the cost.
(3)
(4)(a)
(b)
(5)
(c)
(2)
(a) The ICO will review each application for compliance with the requirements of this part.
(b) The ICO may request additional information from the applicant, with respect to any of the application submission requirements of § 400.4, prior to making a recommendation for an award. Failure to submit such additional information may preclude the applicant from further consideration for award.
(c) The Administrator and Assistant Secretary will jointly approve and announce, in writing, grant awards to qualifying applicants.
(a)
(1) Grant funds for each State that meets the certification requirements set forth in § 400.4 will be allocated—
(i) 50 percent in the ratio which the population of the State bears to the total population of all the States, as shown by the latest available Federal census; and
(ii) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each State bears to the total public road mileage in all States, as shown by the latest available Federal Highway Administration data.
(2) Grant funds for each Tribal Organization that meets the certification requirements set forth in § 400.4 will be allocated—
(i) 50 percent in the ratio to which the population of the Tribal Organization bears to the total population of all Tribal Organizations, as determined by the most recent population data on American Indian/Alaska Native Reservation of Statistical Area; and
(ii) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each Tribal Organization bears to the total public road mileage in tribal areas, using the most recent national tribal transportation facility inventory data.
(2)
(b)(1)
(2)
(c)
Grant funds awarded under this part may be used only for:
(a) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;
(b) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of emergency response organizations; and
(c) 911-related training of public safety personnel, including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.
(a) A grant recipient must submit on an annual basis 30 days after the end of each fiscal year during which grant funds are available, the certification set forth in Appendix C of this part if a State, or Appendix D of this part if a Tribal Organization, making the same certification concerning the diversion of designated 911 charges.
(b) In accordance with 47 U.S.C. 942(c), where a recipient knowingly provides false or inaccurate information in its certification related to the diversion of designated 911 charges, the recipient shall—
(1) Not be eligible to receive the grant under this part;
(2) Return any grant awarded under this part during the time that the certification was not valid; and
(3) Not be eligible to receive any subsequent grants under this part.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(1) A final voucher for the costs incurred. The final voucher constitutes the final financial reconciliation for the grant award.
(2) A final report to NHTSA, following the procedures of 2 CFR 200.343(a).
(c)
It is the general intent of the ICO not to waive any of the provisions set forth in this part. However, under extraordinary circumstances and when it is in the best interest of the federal
I. On behalf of [
II. I further certify that the State has not diverted and will not divert any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the State for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented from the time period 180 days preceding the date of the application and continuing through the time period during which grant funds are available.
I further certify that no taxing jurisdiction in the State that will receive 911 grant funds has diverted any portion of the designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented from the time period 180 days preceding the date of the application.
I further certify that the State will ensure that each taxing jurisdiction in the State that receives 911 grant funds does not divert any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated during the time period which grant funds are available.
I agree that, as a condition of receipt of the grant, the State will return all grant funds if the State obligates or expends, at any time for the full duration of this grant, designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented, eliminates such charges, or redesignates such charges for purposes other than the implementation or operation of 911 services, E-911 services, or Next Generation 911 services, and that if a taxing jurisdiction in the State that receives 911 grant funds diverts any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated during the time period which grant funds are available, the State will ensure that 911 grant funds distributed to that taxing jurisdiction are returned.
III. I further certify that the State will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and financial and programmatic requirements for Federal grants.
I. On behalf of [
□ The Tribal Organization has integrated telecommunications services involved in the implementation and delivery of 911 services, E-911 services, and Next Generation 911 services.
II. I further certify that the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal Organization is located has not diverted and will not divert any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal Organization is located for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented from the time period 180 days preceding the date of the application and continuing through the time period during which grant funds are available.
III. I agree that, as a condition of receipt of the grant, the Tribal Organization will return all grant funds if the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal Organization is located obligates or expends, at any time for the full duration of this grant, designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented, eliminates such charges, or redesignates such charges for purposes other than the implementation or operation of 911 services, E-911 services, or Next Generation 911 services.
IV. I further certify that the Tribal Organization will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and financial and programmatic requirements for Federal grants.
V. The single State officer or government body serving as the 911 Coordinator of implementation of 911 services in each State in which the Tribal Organization is located is ___.
On behalf of [
I further certify that no taxing jurisdiction in the State that will receive 911 grant funds has diverted any portion of the designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented from the time period 180 days preceding the date of the application.
I further certify that the State will ensure that each taxing jurisdiction in the State that receives 911 grant funds does not divert any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated during the time period which grant funds are available.
I agree that, as a condition of receipt of the grant, the State will return all grant funds if the State obligates or expends, at any time for the full duration of this grant, designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented, eliminates such charges, or redesignates such charges for purposes other than the implementation or
On behalf of [
I further certify that the Tribal Organization will ensure that the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal Organization is located that receives 911 grant funds does not divert any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated during the time period which grant funds are available.
I agree that, as a condition of receipt of the grant, the Tribal Organization will return all grant funds if the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal Organization is located obligates or expends, at any time for the full duration of this grant, designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented, eliminates such charges, or redesignates such charges for purposes other than the implementation or operation of 911 services, E-911 services, or Next Generation 911 services.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
FMCSA proposes to establish reductions in the annual registration fees collected from motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) Plan and Agreement for the registration years 2018, 2019 and subsequent years. For the 2018 registration year, the fees would be reduced below the current level by approximately 9.10% to ensure that fee revenues do not exceed the statutory maximum, and to account for the excess funds held in the depository. For the 2019 registration year, the fees would be reduced below the current level by approximately 4.55% to ensure the fee revenues in that and future years do not exceed the statutory maximum.
Comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking must be received on or before October 2, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2017-0118 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Mr. Gerald Folsom, Office of Registration and Safety Information, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 by telephone at 202-385-2405. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is organized as follows:
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0118), indicate the specific section of this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is customarily not made available to the general public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each page of your submission as “confidential” or “CBI.” Submissions designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Any commentary that FMCSA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under section 5202 of the FAST Act, Public Law, 114-94 (FAST Act), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for any major or significant rules, unless the Agency finds good cause that an ANPRM is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant; therefore, it is not a major rule that requires an ANPRM.
The UCR Plan and the 41 States participating in the UCR Agreement establish and collect fees from motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. The UCR Plan and Agreement are administered by a 15-member board of directors (UCR Board); 14 appointed from the participating States and the industry, plus the Deputy Administrator of FMCSA. Revenues collected are allocated to the participating States and the UCR Plan. In accordance with the statute, adjustments must be requested by the UCR Plan when annual revenues exceed the maximum allowed in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)(ii). Also, excess funds held by the UCR Plan after payments to the States and for administrative costs are retained in its depository and subsequent fees charged are reduced as required by 49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(4). These two distinct provisions are the reasons for the two-stage adjustment proposed in this rule. The NPRM proposes to provide for a reduction for at least the next two registration years to the annual registration fees established for the Unified Carrier Registration (UCR) Agreement.
The UCR Plan collects registration fees for each registration year. Collection begins on or about October 1st of the previous year, and continues until December 31st of the following year. For example, collection for the 2016 registration year began on October 1st, 2015, and will end on December 31st 2017. Currently the UCR Plan estimates that by December 31st of 2017, total revenues will exceed the statutory maximum for the 2016 registration year by $5.13 million, or approximately 4.55%. This is the first time that revenues collected will exceed the statutory maximum. Therefore, in March 2017, the UCR Board requested that FMCSA adjust the fees in a two-stage process. For the 2018 registration year, with collection beginning on or about October 1st of 2017, the fees would be reduced below the current level by approximately 9.10% to ensure that fee revenues do not exceed the statutory maximum, and to reduce the excess funds held in the depository. For the 2019 registration year, with collection beginning on or about October 1st of 2018, the fees would be reduced below the current level by approximately 4.55% to ensure the fee revenues in that and future years do not exceed the statutory maximum. The UCR Plan requested that the reduction for 2018 be adopted no later than August 31, 2017, to enable the participating States and the UCR Plan to reflect the new fees when collections for the 2018 registration year begins on or about October 1, 2017. The adoption of the adjusted fees must be accomplished by rulemaking by FMCSA under authority delegated from the Secretary of Transportation.
The changes proposed in this NPRM will reduce the fees paid by motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies to the participating States. Fees are considered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, as transfer payments, not costs. Transfer payments are payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources available to society. Therefore, transfers are not considered in the monetization of
The UCR Plan's formal recommendation requested that FMCSA publish a rule reducing the fees paid per motor carrier, motor private carrier of property, broker, freight forwarder, and leasing company based on an analysis of current collections and past trends. The Agency reviewed the UCR Plan's formal recommendation and concluded that the UCR Plan's projection of the total revenues received for registration year 2016 may have been understated. This understatement would result in slightly higher fees for certain brackets. FMCSA conducted its own analysis, adjusted the methodology for projecting collections through the remainder of 2017, and updated the fees accordingly. The total amount targeted for collection by the UCR Plan will not change as a result of this rule, but the fees paid, or transfers, per affected entity will be reduced.
The following is a list of abbreviations used in this document
This rule proposes to make adjustments in the annual registration fees for the UCR Agreement established by 49 U.S.C. 14504a. The requested fee adjustments are required by 49 U.S.C. 14504a because, for the registration year 2016, the total revenues collected are expected to exceed for the first time the total revenue entitlements of $107.78 million distributed to the 41 participating States plus the $5 million established for the administrative costs associated with the UCR Plan and Agreement. The requested adjustments have been submitted by the UCR Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)(ii), which requires the Plan to request an adjustment by the Secretary when the annual revenues exceed the maximum allowed. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(4) states that any excess funds held by the UCR Plan in its depository, after payments to the States and for administrative costs, shall be retained “and the fees charged . . . shall be reduced by the Secretary accordingly.”
The Secretary also has broad rulemaking authority in 49 U.S.C. 13301(a) to carry out 49 U.S.C. 14504a, which is part of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B. Authority to administer these statutory provisions has been delegated to the FMCSA Administrator by 49 CFR 1.87(a)(2) and (7).
The statute states that the “Unified Carrier Registration Plan . . . mean[s] the organization . . . responsible for developing, implementing, and administering the unified carrier registration agreement” (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(9)) (UCR Plan). The UCR Agreement developed by the UCR Plan is the “interstate agreement governing the collection and distribution of registration and financial responsibility information provided and fees paid by motor carriers, motor private carriers, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. . .” (49 U.S.C. 14504a(a)(8)).
The legislative history of the statute indicates that the purpose of the UCR Plan and Agreement is both to replace the Single State Registration System (SSRS) for registration of interstate motor carrier entities with the States and to “ensure that States don't lose current revenues derived from SSRS” (S. Rep. 109-120, at 2 (2005)). The statute provides for a 15-member Board of Directors for the UCR Plan to be appointed by the Secretary of Transportation. The statute specifies that the UCR Board should consist of one individual (either the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Deputy Administrator or another Presidential appointee) from the Department of Transportation; four directors from among the chief administrative officers of the State agencies responsible for administering the UCR Agreement (one from each of the four FMCSA service areas); five directors from among the professional staffs of State agencies responsible for administering the UCR Agreement, to be nominated by the National Conference of State Transportation Specialists (NCSTS); and five directors from the motor carrier industry, of whom at least one must be from a national trade association representing the general motor carrier of property industry and one from a motor carrier that falls within the smallest fleet fee bracket.
The UCR Plan and the participating States are authorized by 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f) to establish and collect fees from motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. The current annual fees charged are set out in 49 CFR 367.30. These fees were adopted by FMCSA in 2010 after a rulemaking proceeding that considered the substantial increase in fees over the fees initially established in 2007. Compare 75 FR 21993 (Apr. 27, 2010) with 72 FR 48585 (Aug. 24, 2007).
For carriers and freight forwarders, the fees vary according to the size of the vehicle fleets, as required by 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f). The fees collected are allocated to the States and the UCR Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(h).
The statute specifies that fees are to be based upon the recommendation of the UCR Board, 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)(ii). In recommending the level of fees to be assessed in any agreement year, and in setting the fee level, both the Board and the Agency shall consider the following factors:
• Administrative costs associated with the UCR Plan and Agreement.
• Whether the revenues generated in the previous year and any surplus or shortage from that or prior years enable the participating States to achieve the revenue levels set by the Board; and.
• Provisions governing fees in 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1).
The fees may be adjusted within a reasonable range on an annual basis if the revenues derived from the fees are either insufficient to provide the participating States with the revenues they are entitled to receive or exceed those revenues (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)).
Overall, the fees assessed under the UCR Agreement must produce the level of revenue established by statute. Section 14504a(g) establishes the revenue entitlements for States that choose to participate in the UCR Plan. That section provides that a participating State, which participated in SSRS in the registration year prior to the enactment of the Unified Carrier Registration Act of 2005 is entitled to receive revenues under the UCR Agreement equivalent to the revenues it received in the year before that enactment. Participating States that also collected intrastate registration fees from interstate motor carrier entities
FMCSA's interpretation of its responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 14504a in setting fees for the UCR Plan and Agreement is guided by the primacy the statute places on the need both to set and to adjust the fees so that they “provide the revenues to which the States are entitled.” The statute links the requirement that the fees be adjusted “within a reasonable range” to the provision of sufficient revenues to meet the entitlements of the participating States (49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E), See also 49 U.S.C. 14504a(d)(7)(A)(ii)).
Section 14504a(h)(4) gives additional support for this interpretation. This provision explicitly requires FMCSA to reduce the fees for all motor carrier entities in the year following any year in which the depository retains any funds in excess of the amount necessary to satisfy the revenue entitlements of the participating States and the UCR Plan's administrative costs.
On March 14, 2017, the UCR Board voted unanimously to submit a recommendation to the Secretary for a reduction of registration fees collected by the Plan for 2018, with a subsequent upward adjustment in 2019. The recommendation was submitted to the Secretary on March 22, 2017, and a copy has been placed in the docket.
As indicated in the analysis attached to the March 22, 2017 letter, as of the end of February 2017, the UCR Plan had already collected for 2016 $4.15 million more than the statutory maximum of $112.78 million. The UCR Plan estimates that by the end of 2017, total revenues will exceed the statutory maximum for 2016 by $5.13 million, or approximately 4.55%. The excess revenues collected will be held in a depository maintained by the Plan as required by 49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(4).
The requested adjustments have been submitted by the UCR Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14504a(f)(1)(E)(ii), which requires it to request an adjustment when the annual revenues exceed the maximum allowed. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 14504a(h)(4) states that any excess funds held by the UCR Plan in its depository, after payments to the States and for administrative costs, shall be retained “and the fees charged . . . shall be reduced by the Secretary accordingly.” These two provisions are distinct, and are the basis for the two-stage adjustment in the recommendation.
The requested adjustments would occur in two stages; an initial reduction below the current level by approximately 9.10% for 2018, followed by a reduction below the current level by approximately 4.55% for 2019. The adjusted fees recommended for each bracket for 2018 and 2019 are shown in the analysis attached to the March 22 letter. The UCR Plan has requested that the reduction for the 2018 registration year be adopted not later than August 31, 2017, to enable the participating States and the UCR Plan to reflect the new fees when fee collection for the 2018 registration year begins on October 1, 2017.
The Agency reviewed the UCR Plan's formal recommendation and concluded that the UCR Plan's estimate of the total revenues received by the end of 2017 may have been understated. In order to estimate the revenue collections for the 2016 registration year, the UCR Plan's recommendation looks across years to find the minimum amount collected in each month, and then sums the minimum from each month to develop the total minimum projection. This method ignores the relationship between each month's registrations within a given registration year. Within each registration year there is a set number of carriers that would register; therefore, the number of registrations in each month is related to the number of registrations in previous months. FMCSA believes that using the proposed method artificially reduces the total minimum projection, thereby increasing the fees charged. This understatement would result in slightly higher fees for certain brackets.
FMCSA conducted its own analysis, adjusted the methodology for projecting collections for the 2016 registration year, and updated the fees accordingly. FMCSA estimated the minimum projection of revenue collections for March through December of 2017 by summing the collections within each registration year (2013-2015) and then compared across years to find the minimum total amount. FMCSA projected that for the 2016 registration year, the minimum revenue collection for March through December of 2017 when the collection period would end would be $1,035,305, which is $55,000 more than the Plan's projection of $980,139. Ultimately, the slightly higher minimum projection then results in a slightly lower fee for certain brackets. Where it exists, the resulting fee difference between the Plan's method and FMCSA's method is minimal.
For this NPRM, FMCSA proposes that the provisions of 49 CFR 367.30 will be revised to apply to registration years 2010 to 2017, inclusive. A proposed new 49 CFR 367.40 establishes the reduced fees for registration year 2018. A second proposed new section, 49 CFR 367.50, establishes fees for 2019, which will remain in effect in subsequent registration years unless and until revised in the future.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(4) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The changes proposed by this rule would adjust the registration fees paid by motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies to the UCR Plan
This rule would establish adjustments in the annual registration fees for the UCR Plan and Agreement. The total amount targeted for collection by the UCR Plan will not change as a result of this rule, but the fees paid, or transfers, per affected entity will be reduced. The primary entities affected by this rule are the participating States, motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. Because the total amount collected will continue to be the statutory maximum, the participating States will not be impacted by this rule. The primary impact of this rule would be a reduction in fees paid by individual motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. The reduction will range from approximately $7 to $6,700 per entity in the first year, and from approximately $3 to $3,400 per entity in subsequent years, depending on the number of vehicles owned and/or operated by the affected entities.
E.O. 13771 requires that for “every one new [E.O. 13771 regulatory action] 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.”
An E.O. 13771 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rulemaking does not have total costs less than zero, and therefore is not an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
An E.O. 13771 regulatory action is defined as:
(i) A significant action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 that has been finalized, and that imposes total costs greater than zero; or
(ii) a significant guidance document (
The Agency action, in this case a rulemaking, must meet both the significance and the total cost criteria to be considered an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, and therefore does not meet the significance criterion for being an E.O. 13771 regulatory action. Consequently, this rulemaking is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action and no further action under E.O. 13771 is required.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule will directly affect the participating States, motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies. Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA, the participating States are not small entities. States are not considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, States are not considered small governmental jurisdictions under Section 601(5) of the RFA, both because State government is not included among the various levels of government listed in Section 601(5), and because, even if this were the case, no State nor the District of Columbia has a population of less than 50,000, which is the criterion by which a governmental jurisdiction is considered small under Section 601(5) of the RFA.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for a small entity (13 CFR 121.201) differs by industry code. The entities affected by this rule fall into many different industry codes. In order to determine if this rule would have an impact on a significant number of small entities, FMCSA examined the 2012 Economic Census
However, FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on the affected entities. The effect of this rule will be to reduce the annual registration fee motor carriers, motor private carriers of property, brokers, freight forwarders, and leasing companies are currently required to pay. The reduction will range from approximately $7 to $6,700 per entity, in the first year, and from approximately $3 to $3,400 per entity in subsequent years, depending on the number of vehicles owned and/or operated by the affected entities. FMCSA asserts that the reduction in fees will be entirely beneficial to these entities, and will not have a significant impact on the affected small entities. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
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 $155 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” FMCSA determined that this proposal would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note) requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, § 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. As a result, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 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 (
FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.
Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Motor carriers, Surety bonds.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR chapter III, part 367 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 13301, 14504a; and 49 CFR 1.87.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that we are adding Uganda to the list of regions that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service considers to be affected by highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). This action follows our imposition of HPAI-related restrictions on avian commodities originating from or transiting Uganda as a result of the confirmation of HPAI in Uganda.
Uganda was added the list of regions under temporary restrictions on January 14, 2017. Uganda is added to the list of regions considered to be affected by HPAI as of September 21, 2017.
Dr. Rebecca Gordon, Import Risk Analyst, National Import Export Services, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606; phone (919) 855-7741;
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from regions where these diseases are considered to exist.
Section 94.6 contains requirements governing the importation into the United States of carcasses, meat, parts or products of carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other birds from regions of the world where HPAI exists or is reasonably believed to exist. HPAI is an extremely infectious and potentially fatal form of avian influenza in birds and poultry that, once established, can spread rapidly from flock to flock. A list of regions that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) considers affected with HPAI of any subtype is maintained on the APHIS Web site at
APHIS receives notice of HPAI outbreaks from veterinary officials of the exporting country, from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), or from other sources the Administrator determines to be reliable. On January 15, 2017, the veterinary authorities of Uganda reported to the OIE the confirmation on January 14, 2017, of HPAI H5 in domestic ducks and chickens in Bukakata (Masaka District). The report indicated 30,000 domestic birds were susceptible. The OIE followup report dated January 27, 2017, confirmed the HPAI subtype H5N8.
In response to that outbreak, APHIS placed restrictions on the importation of poultry, commercial birds, other types of birds (research, performing), ratites, any avian hatching eggs, unprocessed avian products and byproducts, and certain fresh poultry products from Uganda to mitigate risk of HPAI introduction into the United States. Those restrictions went into effect on January 14, 2017. With the publication of this notice, we are adding Uganda to the list of regions APHIS considers affected with HPAI of any subtype.
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of September 2017.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to the release of a leaf-feeding moth,
Dr. Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director, Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2327, email:
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to issue permits for the release of a leaf-feeding moth,
On July 13, 2017, we published in the
We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending August 14, 2017. We received 28 comments by that date. With one exception, the comments supported the proposed release.
In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the release of
The EA and FONSI may be viewed on the
The EA and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with legislation implementing the results of the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we are informing the public of the international standard-setting activities of the World Organization for Animal Health, the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, and the North American Plant Protection Organization, and we are soliciting public comment on the standards to be considered.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For general information on the topics covered in this notice, contact Ms. Jessica Mahalingappa, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Trade and Capacity Building, International Services, APHIS, Room 1132, USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; (202) 799-7121.
For specific information regarding standard-setting activities of the World Organization for Animal Health, contact Dr. Michael David, Director, International Animal Health Standards Team, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 33, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3302.
For specific information regarding the standard-setting activities of the International Plant Protection Convention, contact Dr. Marina Zlotina, IPPC Technical Director, International Phytosanitary Standards, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 130, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2200.
For specific information on the North American Plant Protection Organization, contact Ms. Patricia Abad, NAPPO Technical Director, International Phytosanitary Standards, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 130, Riverdale, MD, 20737; (301) 851-2264.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established as the common international institutional framework for governing trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. U.S. membership in the WTO was approved by Congress when it enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), which was signed into law on December 8, 1994. The WTO Agreements, which established the WTO, entered into force with respect to the United States on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended Title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531
“International standard” is defined in 19 U.S.C. 2578b as any standard, guideline, or recommendation: (1) Adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) regarding food safety; (2) developed under the auspices of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE, formerly known as the Office International des Epizooties) regarding animal health and welfare and zoonoses; (3) developed under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) regarding plant health; or (4)
The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the Secretary of Agriculture as the official responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) informs the public of Codex standard-setting activities, and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) informs the public of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO standard-setting activities.
FSIS publishes an annual notice in the
APHIS is responsible for publishing an annual notice of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO activities related to international standards for plant and animal health and representing the United States with respect to these standards. Following are descriptions of the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO organizations and the standard-setting agenda for each of these organizations. We have described the agenda that each of these organizations will address at their annual general sessions, including standards that may be presented for adoption or consideration, as well as other initiatives that may be underway at the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO.
The agendas for these meetings are subject to change, and the draft standards identified in this notice may not be sufficiently developed and ready for adoption as indicated. Also, while it is the intent of the United States to support adoption of international standards and to participate actively and fully in their development, it should be recognized that the U.S. position on a specific draft standard will depend on the acceptability of the final draft. Given the dynamic and interactive nature of the standard-setting process, we encourage any persons who are interested in the most current details about a specific draft standard or the U.S. position on a particular standard-setting issue, or in providing comments on a specific standard that may be under development, to contact APHIS. Contact information is provided at the beginning of this notice under
The OIE was established in Paris, France, in 1924 with the signing of an international agreement by 28 countries. It is currently composed of 181 Members, each of which is represented by a delegate who, in most cases, is the chief veterinary officer of that country or territory. The WTO has recognized the OIE as the international forum for setting animal health standards, reporting global animal disease events, and presenting guidelines and recommendations on sanitary measures relating to animal health.
The OIE facilitates intergovernmental cooperation to prevent the spread of contagious diseases in animals by sharing scientific research among its Members. The major functions of the OIE are to collect and disseminate information on the distribution and occurrence of animal diseases and to ensure that science-based standards govern international trade in animals and animal products. The OIE aims to achieve these through the development and revision of international standards for diagnostic tests, vaccines, and the safe international trade of animals and animal products.
The OIE provides annual reports on the global distribution of animal diseases, recognizes the free status of Members for certain diseases, categorizes animal diseases with respect to their international significance, publishes bulletins on global disease status, and provides animal disease control guidelines to Members. Various OIE commissions and working groups undertake the development and preparation of draft standards, which are then circulated to Members for consultation (review and comment). Draft standards are revised accordingly and are then presented to the OIE World Assembly of Delegates (all the Members) for review and adoption during the General Session, which meets annually every May. Adoption, as a general rule, is based on consensus of the OIE membership.
The next OIE General Session is scheduled for May 20 to May 25, 2018, in Paris, France. The Chief Trade Advisor for APHIS' Veterinary Services program serves as the official U.S. Delegate to the OIE at this General Session. The Deputy Administrator for APHIS' Veterinary Services program serves as the Alternate Delegate. Information about OIE draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Code chapters may be found on the Internet at
Sixteen Code chapters were amended, rewritten, or newly proposed and presented for adoption at the General Session. The following Code chapters are of particular interest to the United States:
Several definitions, including the definitions for
Text in this existing chapter was modified for clarity and consistency and was adopted by the Members.
Text in this Code chapter had a minor modification for clarity.
This is a new Code chapter that was adopted this year. It provides clear guidance for determining general treatments and procedures for the safe trade of animal products.
A minor change was made in this existing chapter that was adopted and supported by the Members.
Text in this existing Code chapter was modified for clarity and consistency.
These two chapters are new Code chapters that were adopted this year and are intended to provide Member countries with guidance for preventing and controlling Salmonella in cattle and pig herds.
This chapter was adopted in 2015. Some additional changes were made and adopted that clarified the space requirement recommendations.
This chapter was adopted in 2016. Changes were made this year to further clarify the influencing factors that determine work and resting requirements for working equids.
This chapter was completely revised to bring the recommendations up to date with current scientific knowledge.
The text in this existing chapter was changed to update the heat treatment parameters for inactivating the virus in certain egg products. The modified text was accepted and adopted.
The text in this existing chapter was updated to reflect current control and testing methods. The updated chapter was accepted and adopted.
The text in this existing chapter was updated to incorporate state of the art science and terminology for clarity and consistency. The modified text was accepted and adopted.
This is a newly adopted chapter and includes recommendations for the safe trade of meat, as well as a listing of safe commodities that can be traded regardless of the PRRS situation in a country.
The following Aquatic chapters were revised and adopted, and are of particular interest to the United States:
• Chapter 1.5., Criteria for Listing Species as Susceptible to Infection with a Specific Pathogen.
• Chapter 2.2.7., Infection for White Spot syndrome Virus.
• Glossary.
• Chapter 4.3., Zoning and Compartmentalization.
• Chapter 4.8., Collection and Processing of
• Chapter 4.X., Vaccination.
• Chapter 4.Y., Management of Outbreaks of Listed Diseases.
• Chapter 6.1., The Role of Veterinary Services in Food Safety.
• Chapter 6.7., Harmonization of National AMR Surveillance and Monitoring Program.
• Chapter 6.Z., Introduction Veterinary Public Health.
• Chapter 7.1., Guiding Principle on the Use of Animal-Based Measures.
• Chapter 7.X., Animal Welfare and Pig Production Systems.
• Chapter 8.3., Infection with Bluetongue Virus.
• Chapter 8.4., Infection with
• Chapter 8.8., Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease.
• Chapter 8.15., Infection with Rinderpest Virus.
• Chapter 15.1., Infection with African Swine Fever Virus.
• Chapter 15.2., Infection with Classical Swine Fever Virus.
The IPPC is a multilateral convention adopted in 1952 to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote appropriate measures for their control. The WTO recognizes the IPPC as the standard setting body for plant health. Under the IPPC, the understanding of plant protection encompasses the protection of both cultivated and non-cultivated plants from direct or indirect injury by plant pests. The IPPC addresses the following activities: Developing, adopting, and implementing international standards for phytosanitary (plant health) measures (ISPMs); harmonizing phytosanitary activities through emerging standards; facilitating the exchange of official and scientific information among countries; and providing technical assistance to developing countries that are contracting parties to the Convention.
The IPPC is deposited within the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and is an international agreement of 183 contracting parties. National plant protection organizations (NPPOs), in cooperation with regional plant protection organizations, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM), and the Secretariat of the IPPC, implement the Convention. The IPPC continues to be administered at the national level by plant quarantine officials, whose primary objective is to safeguard plant resources from injurious pests. In the United States, the NPPO is APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program.
The 12th Session of the CPM took place from April 5 to 11, 2017, in Incheon, Republic of Korea. The Deputy Administrator for APHIS' PPQ program was the U.S. delegate to the CPM.
The CPM adopted the following standards at its 2017 meeting. The United States, represented by the Deputy Administrator for APHIS' PPQ program, participated in deliberations of these standards. The United States developed its position on each of these issues prior to the CPM session, which were based on APHIS' analyses and other relevant information from other U.S. Government agencies and interested stakeholders:
In addition to adopting 25 plant health standards, the 2017 Commission meeting also progressed a number of plant health initiatives strategically important to the United States. These initiatives include advancing the development of a new IPPC strategic framework for 2020-2030 to set the top priorities for plant health and trade, launching a pilot of a global electronic certification system to support trade (ePhyto), developing programs aimed at improving the use and implementation of standards around the world, and creating a task force for addressing pests issues associated with the international movement of sea containers.
A number of expert working group (EWG) meetings or other technical consultations took place during 2017 on the topics listed below. These standard-setting initiatives are under development and may be considered for future adoption. APHIS intends to participate actively and fully in each of these working groups. APHIS developed its position on each of the topics prior to the working group meetings. The APHIS position was based on technical analyses, information from other U.S. Government agencies, and relevant scientific information from interested stakeholders:
For more detailed information on the above, contact Dr. Marina Zlotina (see
PPQ actively works to achieve broad participation by States, industry, and other stakeholders in the development and use of international and regional plant health standards. Plant health stakeholders are strongly encouraged to comment on draft standards, documents, and specifications during the consultation periods. In 2017, 13 standards (including phytosanitary treatments and pest diagnostic protocols) and 3 draft specifications were open for first and second consultation. APHIS posts links to draft standards on the Internet as they become available and provides information on the due dates for comments.
NAPPO, a regional plant protection organization created in 1976 under the IPPC, coordinates the efforts among the United States, Canada, and Mexico to protect their plant resources from the entry, establishment, and spread of harmful plant pests, while facilitating intra- and inter-regional trade. As the NPPO of the United States, APHIS-PPQ is the organization officially identified to participate in NAPPO. Through NAPPO, APHIS works closely with its regional counterparts and industries to develop harmonized regional standards and approaches for managing pest threats. NAPPO conducts its work through priority-driven annual projects approved by the NAPPO Executive Committee and conducted by expert groups, including subject matter experts from each member country and regional industry representatives. Project results and updates are provided during the NAPPO annual meeting. Projects can include the development of positions, policies, or technical documents, or the development or revision of regional standards for phytosanitary measures (RSPMs). Projects can also include implementation of standards or other capacity development activities such as workshops.
The 41st NAPPO annual meeting will be held October 16 to 19, 2017, in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. The NAPPO Executive Committee meetings will take place on October 16 and 20, 2017. The Deputy Administrator for PPQ is the U.S. member of the NAPPO Executive Committee.
The NAPPO expert groups (including member countries' subject matter experts) finalized the following regional standards, documents, or projects in 2016:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 2017 work program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The PPQ Assistant Deputy Administrator, as the official U.S. delegate to NAPPO, intends to participate in the adoption of these regional plant health standards and projects, including the work described above, once they are completed and ready for such consideration.
The information in this notice contains all the information available to us on NAPPO standards under development or consideration. For updates on meeting times and for information on the expert groups that may become available following publication of this notice, visit the NAPPO Web site or contact Ms. Patricia Abad (see
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that we are adding Zimbabwe to the list of regions that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service considers to be affected by highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). This action follows our imposition of HPAI-related restrictions on avian commodities originating from or transiting Zimbabwe as a result of the confirmation of HPAI in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe was added to the list of regions under temporary restrictions on June 1, 2017. Zimbabwe is added to the list of regions considered to be affected by HPAI as of September 21, 2017.
Mr. Javier Vargas, Import Risk Analyst, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3300;
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including Newcastle disease and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live poultry, poultry meat, and other poultry products from regions where these diseases are considered to exist.
Section 94.6 of part 94 of the regulations contains requirements governing the importation into the United States of carcasses, meat, parts or products of carcasses, and eggs (other than hatching eggs) of poultry, game birds, or other birds from regions of the world where HPAI exists or is reasonably believed to exist. HPAI is an extremely infectious and potentially fatal form of avian influenza in birds and poultry that, once established, can spread rapidly from flock to flock. A list of regions that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) considers affected with HPAI of any subtype is maintained on the APHIS Web site at
APHIS receives notice of HPAI outbreaks from veterinary officials of the exporting country, from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), or from other sources the Administrator determines to be reliable. On June 1, 2017, the veterinary authorities of Zimbabwe reported to the OIE the confirmation of a highly pathogenic H5N8 strain of avian influenza in the Province of Mashonaland East that affected a commercial poultry breeding farm for broilers and layers with a total census of approximately 2 million birds.
In response to that outbreak, APHIS placed restrictions on the importation of poultry, commercial birds, other types of birds (research, performing), ratites, any avian hatching eggs, unprocessed avian products and byproducts, and certain fresh poultry products from Zimbabwe to mitigate risk of HPAI introduction into the United States. Those restrictions went into effect on June 1, 2017. With the publication of this notice, we are adding Zimbabwe to the list of regions APHIS considers affected with HPAI of any subtype.
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by November 20, 2017.
Thomas Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Fax: (202) 720-8435 or email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4493, Fax: (202) 720-8435. Email:
This form is used to provide a surety bond for contracts on RUS Forms 200, 257, 786, 790, & 830.
This form is used to provide a surety bond in lieu of RUS Form 168b, when contractor's surety has accepted a small business administration guarantee.
This form is used for the closeout of RUS Forms 200, 257, 786, and 830.
This form is used for equipment purchases.
This form is used for generating plant construction or for the furnishing and installation of major items of equipment.
This form is used to document compliance with the “Buy American” requirement.
This form is used by subcontractors to provide a release of lien in connection with the closeout of RUS Forms 198, 200, 257, 786, 790, and 830.
This form is used for the closeout of RUS Forms 198, 200, 257, 786, and 830.
This form is used to amend contracts except for distribution line construction contracts.
This form is used to document the final construction in connection with the closeout of RUS Form 830.
This form is used to construct headquarter buildings, generating plant buildings and other structure construction.
This form is used to provide a bid bond in RUS Forms 200, 257, 786, 790 and 830.
This form is used for delivery and installation of equipment for system communications.
This form is used for limited distribution construction accounted for under work order procedure.
This form is used in the closeout of RUS Form 790.
This form is used for distribution and/or transmission project construction.
Copies of this information collection, and related forms and instructions, can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-7853. 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.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by November 20, 2017.
Thomas Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164-South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. Fax: (202) 720-8435 or email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Thomas Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4493, Fax: (202) 720-8435. Email:
The RE Act authorizes and empowers the Administrator of RUS to make and guarantee loans to furnish and improve electric service in rural areas. These loans are amortized over a period of up to 35 years and secured by the borrower's electric assets and/or revenue. In the interest of protecting loan security, monitoring compliance with debt covenants, and ensuring that RUS loan funds are used for purposes authorized by law, RUS requires that borrowers prepare and submit for RUS evaluation certain studies and reports. Some of these studies and reports are required only once for each loan application; others must be submitted periodically until the loan is completely repaid. These forms and documents serve as support for electric loan applications and summarizes the types and estimated costs of facilities and equipment for which RUS financing is being requested.
The RE Act also authorizes and empowers the Administrator of RUS to make or cause to be made, studies, investigations, and reports concerning the condition and progress of the electrification of the several States and Territories; and to publish and disseminate information with respect thereto. Information supplied by borrowers forms the basis of many of these reports.
In the past two years, RUS has implemented an application intake system called RDApply that allows applicants to create an online application for RUS loans and grants as well upload attachments, sign
Copies of this information collection, and related forms and instructions, can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-7853. 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.
Estee Lauder Inc. (Estee Lauder) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Bristol and Trevose, Pennsylvania, under FTZ 35. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 30, 2017.
Estee Lauder indicates that it submitted a separate application for usage-driven FTZ site designation at its facilities under FTZ 35. The facilities will be used for production of skin care, fragrance, and cosmetic products. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Estee Lauder from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Estee Lauder would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Perfumes; Fragrance; Lip Make-up; Eye Make-up; Manicure/Pedicure Preparation Pads; Rouge Powder; Non-Rouge Cosmetic Powder; Cosmetic Make-up; Bath Products; Body Wash, Skin Brightening Agent; Brightening Serum; Skin Lightening Agent; Cosmetic Foundation (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%). Estee Lauder would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Ginseng Extract; Crude Mica; Mica Powder; Talc Powder; Silicon Dioxide; Iron Oxide; Titanium Oxides Other Than Titanium Dioxide; Caprylyl Glycol; Zinc Stearate; Potassium Sorbate; Amino Acids; Vitamin C; Vitamin E; Food Coloring; Preparations based on Iron Oxides; Preparations based on Hexacyanoferrates; Gamma Oryzanol; Glyceryl Stearate; Glyceryl Laurate; Sorbitan Palmitate; Algae Extract; Butylene Glycol; Bifidus Extract and Liposome Blend; Caffeine Extract; Centaurium Erythraea Extract; Glycereth Hydroxystearate; Ethyl Macadamiate; Butylene Glycol Extracts; Glyceryl; Rooibois Tea Leaf Extract; Willow Bark Extract; Phospholipid; Protein Complexed Vitamins; Isopropyl Isostearate; Yeast Extract; Dimer Diol Building Block; Sorbitan Stearate; Synthetic Beeswax; Sodium Hyaluronate Solution; Grapefruit Seed Extract; Oat Kernel Extract; Carnosine; Emollient; Hydroglycolic Solution; Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride and Plankton Extract Blend; Polyglycol; Menthyl Pyrrolidone Carboxylate; Salicylic Acid Liposomes; Plant Growth Stimulant; Tribehenin; Polyamide Gellants; Tricontanyl Polyvinylpyrrolidone; 1-Decene Homopolymer Hydrogenated; Olive Leaf Extract; Lipid Synthesis Stimulant; Cosmetic Extenders; Polyethylene Glycols; Trioctyldodecyl Citrate; Sorbitan Tristearate; Agar Microspheres; Anti-Wrinkle Agent; Soy Milk Culture; Glyceryl Behenate; Polydecene; Sucrose Polystearate; Hexyldecyl Stearate; Rose of Jericho; Isopropyl Titanium Triisostearate; Extensins (Plant Cell Wall Glycoprotein); Liquid Polymer for Sprayable, Pourable, or Spreadable Formulae; Vitamin A; Thermochromic Liquid Crystals; Fatty Acid; Glycol Stearate; Glyceryl Dimyristate; Sodium Ribonucleic Acid; Octadecanoic Acid Cetyl Ricinoleate; Chemical Extender; Polyglyceryl; Glycol Distearate; Eye Cream; Glycerin; Phenoxyethanol; Chemical Preservatives; Squalane Butter Treated Powders; Lanolin Substitute; Anti-Aging Complex; Sorbitan; Disteardimomium Hectorite; Sunscreen Dispersion Agent; Sunstone; Oil Absorber; Surfactant; Lime Tea; Carcinine; Skin Firming Agent; Iron Oxide Blend; Glyceryl Ester; Cosmetic Silt; Bifidus Extract; Cosmetic Stabilizer; Corn Extract; Zeolites; Emulsifier; Date Palm Kernel Extract; Moisturizing Agent; Polyglyceryl-2 Isostearate/Dimer Dilinoleate Copolymer; Diisopropyl Dimer Dilinoleate; Petrolatum; Porphyra Extract; Cleansing Oil; Liposomes; Castor Oil; Polyglyceryl-2 Triisostearate; Coagulant; Skin Smoothening Agent; Eye Shadow Binder; Octocrylene; Wild Mint Extract; Tepezcohuite; Bamboo Charcoal Powder; Gel Solvent; Silicone Gel; Phytosterols; Isononyl Isononanoate; Biomimetic Collagen; Sun-Protecting Agent; Retinoids; Antioxidant; Alumina Hydrate Extract; Salicylic Acid and Acacia Senegal Gum Molecular Association; Moisturizing Gel; Elastomer Dispersion; Smoothing Emulsion; Gelator; Skin and Lip Smoothening Powder; Fine Polyamide Powders; Silicones in Primary Form; Plastic Compact; Plastic Bottle; Plastic Cap; Plastic Tube; Paper Packing Containers; Ribbon; Framed Mirrors; Glass Bottle; Brass Compacts; Aluminum Cosmetic Pans; Compact Powder Case; Metal Stoppers, Caps, and Lids; Cosmetic Applicator Powder Puffs and Pads (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 7.8%); and, Mascara Brush (duty rate ranges from 0.2¢ each + 7% to 0.3¢ each + 3.6%).
The request indicates that Ribbon is subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders on certain countries. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 31, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applied September 21, 2017.
Dennis McClure at (202) 482-5973 or Jinny Ahn at (202) 482-0339, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On August 2, 2017, the Department initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of cast iron soil pipe fittings from the People's Respublic of China.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner
On September 5, 2017, the petitioner submitted a timely request that the Department postpone the preliminary CVD determination.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and the Department finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated,
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 8, 2017, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review (AR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Thailand. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results. We received no comments. Accordingly, the final results remain unchanged from the preliminary results.
Applicable September 21, 2017.
Shanah Lee, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6386.
On June 8, 2017, the Department published in the
The merchandise subject to this order is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as nonsealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).
PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments,
As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
As noted above, in the
Because the Department received no comments after the
In addition, consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in
We therefore determine for these final results that the following weighted-average dumping margins on PRCBs from Thailand exist for the POR:
The Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 4.69 percent, the all-others rate established in the order.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanctions.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshops.
Free Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops and Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in October, November, and December of 2017. Certain fishermen and shark dealers are required to attend a workshop to meet regulatory requirements and to maintain valid permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop is mandatory for all federally permitted Atlantic shark dealers. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop is mandatory for vessel owners and operators who use bottom longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet gear, and who have also been issued shark or swordfish limited access permits. Additional free workshops will be conducted during 2018 and will be announced in a future notice.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held on October 26, November 16, and December 14, 2017.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held on October 12, October 25, November 8, November 14, December 8, and December 13, 2017.
See
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops will be held in Somerville, MA; Mount Pleasant, SC; and Largo, FL.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops will be held in Largo, FL; Manahawkin, NJ; Port St. Lucie, FL; Kitty Hawk, NC; Ronkonkoma, NY; and Kenner, LA.
See
Rick Pearson by phone: (727) 824-5399, or by fax: (727) 824-5398.
The workshop schedules, registration information, and a list of frequently asked questions regarding these workshops are posted on the Internet at:
Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark dealers have been prohibited from receiving, purchasing, trading, or bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate is on the premises of each business listed under the shark dealer permit that first receives Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). Dealers who attend and successfully complete a workshop are issued a certificate for each place of business that is permitted to receive sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. Approximately 136 free Atlantic Shark
Currently, permitted dealers may send a proxy to an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy for each place of business covered by the dealer's permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. Only one certificate will be issued to each proxy. A proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and who fills out dealer reports. Atlantic shark dealers are prohibited from renewing a Federal shark dealer permit unless a valid Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate for each business location that first receives Atlantic sharks has been submitted with the permit renewal application. Additionally, trucks or other conveyances that are extensions of a dealer's place of business must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate.
1. October 26, 2017, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn, 23 Cummings Street, Somerville, MA 02145.
2. November 16, 2017, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 300 Wingo Way, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464.
3. December 14, 2017, 12 p.m.-4 p.m., Hampton Inn, 100 East Bay Drive, Largo, FL 33770.
To register for a scheduled Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, please contact Eric Sander at
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items to the workshop:
• Atlantic shark dealer permit holders must bring proof that the attendee is an owner or agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable permit, and proof of identification.
• Atlantic shark dealer proxies must bring documentation from the permitted dealer acknowledging that the proxy is attending the workshop on behalf of the permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a specific business location, a copy of the appropriate valid permit, and proof of identification.
The Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are designed to reduce the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks reported in the dealer reporting form and increase the accuracy of species-specific dealer-reported information. Reducing the number of unknown and improperly identified sharks will improve quota monitoring and the data used in stock assessments. These workshops will train shark dealer permit holders or their proxies to properly identify Atlantic shark carcasses.
Since January 1, 2007, shark limited-access and swordfish limited-access permit holders who fish with longline or gillnet gear have been required to submit a copy of their Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop certificate in order to renew either permit (71 FR 58057; October 2, 2006). These certificate(s) are valid for 3 years. As such, vessel owners who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel owners whose certificate(s) will expire prior to the next permit renewal, must attend a workshop to fish with, or renew, their swordfish and shark limited-access permits. Additionally, new shark and swordfish limited-access permit applicants who intend to fish with longline or gillnet gear must attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and submit a copy of their workshop certificate before either of the permits will be issued. Approximately 262 free Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops have been conducted since 2006.
In addition to certifying vessel owners, at least one operator on board vessels issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit that uses longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop and receive a certificate. Vessels that have been issued a limited-access swordfish or shark permit and that use longline or gillnet gear may not fish unless both the vessel owner and operator have valid workshop certificates onboard at all times. Vessel operators who have not already attended a workshop and received a NMFS certificate, or vessel operators whose certificate(s) will expire prior to their next fishing trip, must attend a workshop to operate a vessel with swordfish and shark limited-access permits that uses longline or gillnet gear.
1. October 12, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, 210 Seminole Boulevard, Largo, FL 33770.
2. October 25, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 151 Route 72 West, Manahawkin, NJ 08050.
3. November 8, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Holiday Inn, 10120 South Federal Highway, Port St. Lucie, FL 34952.
4. November 14, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 North Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949.
5. December 8, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Garden Inn, 3485 Veteran's Memorial Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779. 6. December 13, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062.
To register for a scheduled Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshop, please contact Angler Conservation Education at (386) 682-0158.
To ensure that workshop certificates are linked to the correct permits, participants will need to bring the following specific items with them to the workshop:
• Individual vessel owners must bring a copy of the appropriate swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy of the vessel registration or documentation, and proof of identification.
• Representatives of a business-owned or co-owned vessel must bring proof that the individual is an agent of the business (such as articles of incorporation), a copy of the applicable swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and proof of identification.
• Vessel operators must bring proof of identification.
The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops are designed to teach longline and gillnet fishermen the required techniques for the safe handling and release of entangled and/or hooked protected species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish, and prohibited sharks. In an effort to improve reporting, the proper identification of protected species and prohibited sharks will also be taught at these workshops. Additionally, individuals attending these workshops will gain a better understanding of the requirements for participating in these
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal Construction Project in Washington State.
This authorization is effective from August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2018.
Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as the issued IHA, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Issuance of an MMPA 101(a)(5) authorization requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
NMFS determined the issuance of the IHA is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 (issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude this categorical exclusion.
NMFS received a request from WSDOT for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to Mukilteo Multimodal Project in Mukilteo, Washington. WSDOT's request was for harassment only and NMFS concurs that serious injury or mortality is not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
On April 7, 2016, WSDOT submitted a request to NMFS requesting an IHA for the possible harassment of small numbers of marine mammal species incidental to construction associated with the Mukilteo Multimodal Project in Mukilteo, Washington, between August 1, 2017, and July 31, 2018. WSDOT subsequently updated its project scope and submitted a revised IHA application on April 10, 2017. NMFS determined the IHA application was complete on April 14, 2017. NMFS is proposing to authorize the take by Level A and Level B harassment of the following marine mammal species: Harbor seal (
The purpose of the Mukilteo Multimodal Project is to provide safe, reliable, and effective service and connection for general-purpose transportation, transit, high occupancy vehicles (HOV), pedestrians, and bicyclists traveling between Island County and the Seattle/Everett metropolitan area and beyond by constructing a new ferry terminal. The current Mukilteo Ferry Terminal has not had significant improvements for almost 30 years and needs key repairs. The existing facility is deficient in a number of aspects, such as safety, multimodal connectivity, capacity, and the ability to support the goals of local and regional long-range transportation and comprehensive plans. The project is intended to:
• Reduce conflicts, congestion, and safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists by improving local traffic and safety at the terminal and the surrounding area that serves these transportation needs.
• Provide a terminal and supporting facilities with the infrastructure and operating characteristics needed to improve the safety, security, quality, reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness of multimodal transportation.
• Accommodate future demand projected for transit, HOV, pedestrian, bicycle, and general-purpose traffic.
The proposed Mukilteo Multimodal Project would involve in-water impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile removal. Details of the proposed construction project are provided below.
Due to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in-water work timing restrictions to protect ESA-listed salmonids, planned WSDOT in-water construction is limited each year to July 16 through February 15. For this project, in-water construction is planned to take place between August 1, 2017 and February 15, 2018. The total worst-case time for pile installation and removal is 175 days (Table 1).
The Mukilteo Ferry Terminal is located in the City of Mukilteo, Snohomish County, Washington. The terminal is located in Township 28 North, Range 4 East, Section 3, in Possession Sound. The new terminal will be approximately 1,700 feet (ft) east of the existing terminal in Township 28 North, Range 4 East, Section 33 (Figure 1-2 of the IHA application). Land use in the Mukilteo area is a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space and/or undeveloped lands.
The proposed project has two elements involving noise production that may affect marine mammals: Vibratory hammer driving and removal, and impact hammer driving. Details of the pile driving and pile removal activities are provided in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
The marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that have the potential to occur in the proposed construction area include Pacific harbor seal (
General information on the marine mammal species found in Washington coastal waters can be found in Caretta
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to less than 100 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Nine marine mammal species (5 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and 2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed construction activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may be present, 2 are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section considers the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
The WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal construction work using in-water pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran
Lucke
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
In addition, chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at particular frequencies for marine mammals, which utilize sound for vital biological functions (Clark
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of sound pressure level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). For WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal construction activities, noises from vibratory pile driving and pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the project area, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget Sound.
Finally, marine mammals' exposure to certain sounds could lead to behavioral disturbance (Richardson
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, duration, and context of the effects.
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory pile removal and pile driving in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
With regard to fish as a prey source for cetaceans and pinnipeds, fish are known to hear and react to sounds and to use sound to communicate (Tavolga
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas
During the coastal construction only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on marine mammals' prey availability in the area where construction work is planned.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as noise from pile driving and removal has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high frequency cetaceans and phocids due to larger predicted auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for low- and mid-frequency cetaceans and otariids. The prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the take estimate.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
Applicant's proposed activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). Applicant's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and pile removal) sources.
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
The project includes vibratory pile driving and removal of 24-, 30-, and 36-inch (in) steel piles, vibratory driving of 78- and 120-in steel shaft, vibratory driving of steel H-piles, vibratory driving and removal of steel sheet piles, and impact pile driving and proofing of 24- and 30-in steel piles.
Source levels of the above pile driving activities are based on measurements of the same material types and same or similar dimensions of piles measured at Mukilteo or elsewhere. Specifically, the source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 24-in steel pile is based on vibratory test pile driving of the same pile at the Friday Harbor (WSDOT 2010a). The unweighted SPL
The source level for vibratory pile driving and removal of the 30-in steel pile is based on vibratory pile driving of the same pile at Port Townsend (WSDOT, 2010b). The unweighted SPL
The source level for vibratory pile driving the 36-in steel piles is based on vibratory test pile driving of 36-in steel piles at Port Townsend in 2010 (Laughlin 2011). Recordings of vibratory pile driving were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile. The results show that the unweighted SPL
Source level for vibratory pile driving of the 78- and 120-in steel shaft is based on measurements of 72-in steel piles vibratory driving conducted by CALTRANS. The unweighted SPL
The source level for vibratory pile driving of steel H-piles is based on measurements conducted by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). The unweighted SPL
The source level for vibratory sheet pile driving and removal is based on measurements at the Elliott Bay Seawall Project. The unweighted SPL
Source levels for impact pile driving of the 24-in steel piles are based on impact test pile driving of the same steel pile during the Vashon Acoustic Monitoring by WSDOT (Laughlin, 2015). The unweighted back-calculated source levels at 10 m are 174 dB re 1 μPa
Source levels for impact pile driving of the 30-in steel pile are based on impact test pile driving for the 36-in steel pile at Mukilteo in November 2006. Recordings of the impact pile driving that were made at a distance of 10 m from the pile were analyzed using Matlab. The results show that the unweighted source levels are 178 dB re 1 μPa
A summary of source levels from different pile driving and pile removal activities is provided in Table 4.
These source levels are used to compute the Level A ensonified zones and to estimate the Level B harassment zones. For Level A harassment zones, zones calculated using cumulative SEL are all larger than those calculated using SPL
Source spectrum of the 36-in steel pile recording is used for spectral modeling for the 24-, 30-, and 36-in steel pile vibratory pile driving and removal to calculate Level A exposure distances based on cumulative SEL metric (see below).
For other piles where no recording is available, source modeling cannot be performed. In such cases, the weighting factor adjustment (WFA) recommended by NMFS acoustic guidance (NMFS 2016) was used to determine Level A exposure distances.
Calculation and modeling of applicable ensonified zones are based on source measurements of comparable types and sizes of piles driven by different methods (impact vs. vibratory hammers) as described above.
When NMFS Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate.
For peak SPL (L
Isopleths to Level B behavioral zones are based on root-mean-square SPL (SPL
A summary of the measured and modeled harassment zones is provided in Table 5. The maximum distance is 20,500 m from the source, since this is where landmass intercepts underwater sound propagation.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
Incidental take is estimated for each species by estimating the likelihood of a marine mammal being present within a Level A or Level B harassment zone during active pile driving or removal. The Level A calculation includes a duration component, along with an assumption (which can lead to overestimates in some cases) that animals within the zone stay in that area for the whole duration of the pile driving activity within a day. For all marine mammal species except harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals, estimated takes are calculated based on ensonified area for a specific pile driving activity multiplied by the marine mammal density in the action area, multiplied by the number of pile driving (or removal) days. In most cases, marine mammal density data are from the U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database (Navy 2015). Harbor porpoise density is based on a recent study by Jefferson
The Level A take total was further adjusted by subtracting animals expected to occur within the exclusion zone, where pile driving activities are suspended when an animal is observed in or approaching the zone (see Mitigation section). Further, the number of Level B takes was adjusted to exclude those already counted for Level A takes.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
The harbor seal take estimate is based on local seal abundance information from monitoring during the Mukilteo pier removal project. Marine mammal visual monitoring during Mukilteo Ferry Terminal pier removal project showed an average daily observation of 7 harbor seals (WSDOT 2015). Based on a total of 175 pile driving days for the WSDOT Mukilteo Multimodal Phase 2 project, it is estimated that up to 1,225 harbor seals could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take.” Since 9 days would involve impact pile driving of 30-in piles with Level A harassment zones beyond the required shutdown zones (225 m vs 160 m shutdown zone), we consider that 63 harbor seals exposed during these 9 days would experience Level A harassment.
The California sea lion take estimate is based on local sea lion abundance information during the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal pier removal project (WSDOT 2015). Marine mammal visual monitoring during the Mukilteo pier removal project indicates on average 7 sea lions were observed in the general area of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal per day (WSDOT 2015). Based on a total of 175 pile driving days for the WSDOT Mukilteo Multimodal project, it is estimated that up to 1,225 California sea lions could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take”. Since the Level A harassment zones of otarids are all very small (max. 10 m, Table 5), we do not consider it likely that any sea lions would be taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, all California sea lion takes estimated here are expected to be by Level B harassment.
Northern elephant seal is not common in the Mukilteo Multimodal Project area, however, their presence has been observed in Edmonds area just south of Mukilteo (Huey, Pers. Comm. April 2017). Therefore, a potential take of 20 animals by Level B harassment during the project period is assessed. Since
However, the method used in take estimates does not account for single individuals being taken multiple times during the entire project period of 175 days. Therefore, the percent of marine mammals that are likely to be taken for a given population would be far less than the ratio of numbers of animals taken divided by the population size. For harbor porpoise, the estimated incidences of takes at 6,759 animals would be 60.2 percent of the population, if each single take were a unique individual. However, this is highly unlikely because the results of telemetry and photo-identification studies in Washington waters have demonstrated that harbor porpoise shows site fidelity to small areas for periods of time that can extend between seasons (Hanson
For Southern Resident killer whales, potential takes based on density calculation showed that 4 animals could be exposed to noise levels for Level B harassment. However, mitigation measures prescribed below are expected to prevent such takes.
A summary of estimated marine mammal takes is listed in Table 6.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation. and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Work would occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted. In addition, all in-water construction will be limited to the period between August 1, 2017, and February 15, 2018.
To reduce impact on marine mammals, WSDOT shall use a marine pile driving energy attenuator (
Before the commencement of in-water construction activities, which include impact pile driving and vibratory pile driving and pile removal, WSDOT shall establish Level A harassment zones where received underwater SPLs or SEL
WSDOT shall also establish Level B harassment zones where received underwater SPLs are higher than 160 dB
WSDOT shall establish a maximum 160-m Level A exclusion zone for all marine mammals except low-frequency baleen whales. For Level A harassment zones that are smaller than 160 m from the source, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones that correspond to the estimated Level A harassment distances, but shall not be less than 10 m. For low-frequency baleen whales, WSDOT shall establish exclusion zones that correspond to the actual Level A harassment distances, but shall not be less than 10 m.
A summary of exclusion zones is provided in Table 7.
NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSO) shall conduct an initial survey of the exclusion zones to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zones before pile driving and pile removal of a pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the exclusion zone, pile driving of the segment would be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor would wait 30 minutes. If no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it can be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
If pile driving of a segment ceases for 30 minutes or more and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated exclusion zone prior to commencement of pile driving, the observer(s) must notify the pile driving operator (or other authorized individual) immediately and continue to monitor the exclusion zone. Operations may not resume until the marine mammal has exited the exclusion zone or 30 minutes have elapsed since the last sighting.
A “soft-start” technique is intended to allow marine mammals to vacate the area before the impact pile driver reaches full power. Whenever there has been downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact pile driving, the contractor will initiate the driving with ramp-up procedures described below.
Soft start for impact hammers requires contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Each day, WSDOT will use the soft-start technique at the beginning of impact pile driving, or if pile driving has ceased for more than 30 minutes.
WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within an exclusion zone or is about to enter an exclusion zone listed in Table 6.
WSDOT shall also implement shutdown measures if southern resident killer whales are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone (or Zone of Influence, ZOI) during in-water construction activities.
If a killer whale approaches the ZOI during pile driving or removal, and it is unknown whether it is a Southern Resident killer whale or a transient killer whale, it shall be assumed to be a Southern Resident killer whale and WSDOT shall implement the shutdown measure.
If a Southern Resident killer whale or an unidentified killer whale enters the ZOI undetected, in-water pile driving or pile removal shall be suspended until the whale exits the ZOI to avoid further level B harassment.
Further, WSDOT shall implement shutdown measures if the number of authorized takes for any particular species reaches the limit under the IHA (if issued) and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B harassment zone during in-water construction activities.
Prior to the start of pile driving for the day, the Orca Network and/or Center for Whale Research will be contacted by WSDOT to find out the location of the nearest marine mammal sightings. The Orca Sightings Network consists of a list of over 600 (and growing) residents, scientists, and government agency personnel in the U.S. and Canada. Sightings are called or emailed into the Orca Network and immediately distributed to other sighting networks including: The NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, the Center for Whale Research, Cascadia Research, the Whale Museum Hotline and the British Columbia Sightings Network.
Sightings information collected by the Orca Network includes detection by hydrophone. The SeaSound Remote Sensing Network is a system of interconnected hydrophones installed in the marine environment of Haro Strait (west side of San Juan Island) to study orca communication, in-water noise, bottom fish ecology and local climatic conditions. A hydrophone at the Port Townsend Marine Science Center measures average in-water sound levels and automatically detects unusual sounds. These passive acoustic devices allow researchers to hear when different marine mammals come into the region. This acoustic network, combined with the volunteer (incidental) visual sighting network allows researchers to document presence and location of various marine mammal species.
Based on our evaluation of the required measures, NMFS has determined that the prescribed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth,
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
WSDOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Mukilteo Multimodal Project. The PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following requirements:
1. Independent observers (
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs;
Monitoring of marine mammals around the construction site shall be conducted using high-quality binoculars (
• For Level A zones less than 160 m and Level B zones less than 1,000 m (
• For Level A zones between 160 and 500 m, and Level B zones between 1,000 and 10,000 m (
• For the rest of the pile driving and pile removal scenario, 5 land-based PSOs and 2 vessel-based PSOs on ferries will monitor the Level A and Level B harassment zones.
Locations of the land-based PSOs and routes of monitoring vessels are shown in WSDOT's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, which is available online at
To verify the required monitoring distance, the exclusion zones and ZOIs will be determined by using a range finder or hand-held global positioning system device.
WSDOT is required to submit a draft monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the construction work or the expiration of the IHA, whichever comes earlier. This report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. NMFS would have an opportunity to provide comments on the report, and if NMFS has comments, WSDOT would address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days.
In addition, NMFS would require WSDOT to notify NMFS' Office of Protected Resources and NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator within 48 hours of sighting an injured or dead marine mammal in the construction site. WSDOT shall provide NMFS and the Stranding Network with the species or description of the animal(s), the condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition, if the animal is dead), location, time of first discovery, observed behaviors (if alive), and photo or video (if available).
In the event that WSDOT finds an injured or dead marine mammal that is not in the construction area, WSDOT would report the same information as listed above to NMFS as soon as operationally feasible.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, this introductory discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 6, given that the anticipated effects of WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal Project activities involving pile driving and pile removal on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis by species for this activity, or else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed.
Although a few marine mammal species (63 harbor seals, 61 harbor porpoises, and 4 Dall's porpoise) are estimated to experience Level A harassment in the form of PTS if they stay within the Level A harassment zone during the entire pile driving for the day, the degree of injury is expected to be mild and is not likely to affect the reproduction or survival of the individual animals because most animals will avoid the area, and thus avoid injury. It is expected that, if hearing impairments occurs, most likely the affected animal would lose a few dB in its hearing sensitivity, which in most cases is not likely to affect its survival and recruitment. Hearing impairment that occur for these individual animals would be limited to the dominant frequency of the noise sources,
For the rest of the three marine mammal species, takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment. Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile removal and the implosion noise. These behavioral distances are not expected to affect marine mammals' growth, survival, and reproduction due to the limited geographic area that would be affected in comparison to the much larger habitat for marine mammals in the Puget Sound.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the “Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat” section. The project activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical environment, WSDOT's proposed construction activity at Mukilteo Ferry Terminal would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Level A harassment is expected in the form of elevated hearing threshold of a few dBs within limited frequency range, and is limited to a few individual animals of three species; and
• The majority of harassment is Level B harassment in the form of short-term behavioral modification.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the prescribed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
The estimated takes are below 12 percent of the population for all marine mammals except harbor porpoise (Table 6). For harbor porpoise, the estimate of 6,759 incidences of takes would be 60.2 percent of the population, if each single take were a unique individual. However, this is highly unlikely because the harbor porpoise in Washington waters shows site fidelity to small areas for periods of time that can extend between seasons (Hanson
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
The humpback whale and the killer whale (southern resident distinct population segment (DPS)) are the only marine mammal species listed under the ESA that could occur in the vicinity of WSDOT's proposed construction project. Two DPSs of the humpback whale stock, the Mexico DPS and the Central America DPS, are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, respectively. NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has initiated consultation with NMFS' West Coast Regional Office under section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA to WSDOT under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity.
In July 2017, NMFS finished conducting its section 7 consultation and issued a Biological Opinion concluding that the issuance of the IHA associated with WSDOT's Mukilteo Multimodal Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered humpback and the Southern Resident killer whales.
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Mukilteo Multimodal Construction Project in Washington State, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Announcement of public hearing dates.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold two public hearings to obtain public testimony and comment on its proposal to withdraw the EPA Region 10 July 2014 Proposed Determination that was issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The public hearings will be held on October 11, 2017, from 6:00-9:00 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time (AKDT) in Dillingham, Alaska, and October 12, 2017, from 1:00-4:00 p.m. AKDT in Iliamna, Alaska. The EPA will continue to accept written public comments through the close of the public comment period on October 17, 2017.
Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369, to the
Visit
The EPA will hold two public hearings on its proposal to withdraw the EPA Region 10 July 2014 Proposed Determination. The hearing dates and locations are as follows:
Additional hearing details and any changes to the schedule are available at
The EPA will not respond to questions/comments during the hearing. The EPA will consider the oral and written statements received at the public hearings and other written comments submitted pursuant to the instructions set forth in the section of this public notice entitled: How to Submit Comments to the Docket at
On July 19, 2017, EPA published a public notice and request for comment in the
• Whether to withdraw the July 2014 Proposed Determination at this time for the reasons stated in the aforementioned notice; and
• if a final withdrawal decision is made following this comment period,
In addition to submitting your comments during the hearing, you may also submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369, by one of the following methods:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Federal Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington” (EPA ICR No. 2020.06, OMB Control No. 2060-0558) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2018. 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.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0516, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Andra Bosneag, Office of Air and Waste, Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-1226; fax number: (206) 553-0110; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The forms associated with this ICR are:
T
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Survey on Clean Water Act Hazardous Substances and Spill Impacts” (EPA ICR
Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0444 online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Joe Beaman, OLEM/OEM/RID, (5104A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0420; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
In 1978, EPA promulgated a list of hazardous substances under CWA section 311(b)(2)(A). This list is found at 40 CFR part 116. EPA concurrently proposed requirements to prevent the discharge of listed hazardous substances from facilities subject to permitting requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the CWA (43 FR 39276); the proposed regulations were never finalized.
On July, 21, 2015, several parties filed a lawsuit against EPA for unreasonable delay/failure to perform a non-discretionary duty to establish regulations for hazardous substances under CWA section 311(j)(1)(C). According to a settlement agreement reached in that case and filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on February 16, 2016, EPA is to issue a proposed regulatory action no later than June 2018. This action date factors in a 10-month extension for the conduct of an ICR.
EPA is developing a regulatory proposal regarding the spill prevention of hazardous substances. However, EPA does not directly receive reports on specific types and amounts of hazardous substances stored and used at facilities across the country. Much of that information is collected under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 U.S. Code Chapter 116; EPCRA) which requires Tier II facilities to report the maximum and average daily amounts of hazardous chemicals on-site during the preceding year to their respective state or territorial authority. Therefore, the Agency has developed a short voluntary survey to be sent to states, tribes and territories of the United States requesting information on their number and type of EPCRA Tier II facilities with CWA hazardous substances onsite, historical discharges of CWA hazardous substances, the ecological and human health impacts of those discharges, and existing state and tribal programs that address spill prevention of hazardous substances.
This information will assist EPA in determining the universe of facilities nationwide that could potentially be subject to spill prevention regulations for hazardous substances listed at 40 CFR part 116. We anticipate this information will inform the rulemaking process, assisting in the identification of affected entities, evaluation of potential regulatory approaches, and estimating economic impacts.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of charter renewal.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) is in the public interest and is necessary in connection with the performance of EPA's duties. Accordingly, CHPAC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of CHPAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues associated with development of regulations, guidance and policies to address children's health risks. Inquiries may be directed to Angela Hackel, Designated Federal Officer, CHPAC, U.S. EPA, OCHP, MC 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Email:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) and Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), an agency of DOI, have entered into a proposed settlement, embodied in an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action (“Settlement Agreement”), with Barrick Gold, U.S., Inc. (“Barrick”). Under the Settlement Agreement, Barrick agrees to carry out a removal action involving the grading, capping and fencing of a mercury calcine tailings pile located at the former Cordero and McDermitt mercury mine sites near McDermitt, Nevada. In addition, Barrick agrees to pay EPA compromised past costs incurred by EPA at the site and future response costs incurred by BLM and EPA during the cleanup.
Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
The Settlement Agreement is available for public inspection at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Records Center, 75 Hawthorne Street, Room 3110, San Francisco, California 94105. Telephone: 415-947-8717. Comments should be addressed to Larry Bradfish, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel (ORC-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; or Email:
Larry Bradfish, Assistant Regional Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; Email:
Notice of this proposed administrative settlement is made in accordance with the Section 122(i) of CECLA. The Settlement Agreement concerns work to be done by Barrick in connection with the Cordero-McDermitt Calcine Pile Site (“Site”), located near the town of McDermitt, Nevada. Parties to the Settlement Agreement include the EPA, BLM, DOI, and Barrick. The Site that is the subject of this Settlement Agreement includes all portions of the Cordero Mercury Mine calcine tailings pile where CERCLA hazardous substances are located. Under this Settlement Agreement, Barrick agrees to carry out a removal action involving the grading, capping and fencing of the calcine tailings pile. The performance of this work by Barrick shall be approved and monitored by BLM in consultation with DOI and EPA. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue Barrick pursuant to Sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Barrick also agrees to pay EPA $230,000 in past response costs. This represents a compromise payment for past costs incurred by EPA. In addition, Barrick agrees to pay BLM $50,000 in prepayment of anticipated future response costs. Both EPA and BLM are entitled to reimbursement of additional future response costs, but EPA will not seek reimbursement for the first $30,000 of any future response costs that it incurs. EPA will consider all comments received on the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 20, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Without this collection of information, the Commission would not have critical information such as a change in a controlling interest in the ownership of the licensee. The Commission would not be able to carry out its duties under the Communications Act and to determine the qualifications of applicants to provide international telecommunications service, including applicants that are affiliated with foreign entities, and to determine whether and under what conditions the authorizations are in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Furthermore, without this collection of information, the Commission would not be able to maintain effective oversight of U.S. providers of international telecommunications services that are affiliated with, or involved in certain co-marketing or similar arrangements with, foreign entities that have market power.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 20, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's
(a) The system of records notice (SORN), FCC/EB-5, “Enforcement Bureau Activity Tracking System (EBATS),” was published in the
(b) The initial Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) was completed on May 22, 2009. However, with the approval of the FCC/EB-5, “EBATS,” on January 24, 2011 and supplementation expected in early Fall 2017, the Commission is now updating the PIA to include the information that is contained in this SORN.
Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 206, 207, 208, 209, 301, 303, 304, 309, 316, 332, and 1302.
Section 208(a) authorizes complaints by any person “complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier” subject to the provisions of the Act.
Section 208(a) states that if a carrier does not satisfy a complaint or there appears to be any reasonable ground for investigating the complaint, the Commission shall “investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper.” Certain categories of complaints are subject to a statutory deadline for resolution.
Formal complaint proceedings before the Commission are similar to civil litigation in federal district court. In fact, under section 207 of the Act, a party claiming to be damaged by a common carrier may file its complaint with the Commission or in any district court of the United States, “but such person shall not have the right to pursue both such remedies” (47 U.S.C. 207). The Commission has promulgated rules (Formal Complaint Rules) to govern its formal complaint proceedings that are similar in many respects to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This collection of information includes the process for electronically submitting a formal complaint against a common carrier. The Commission uses this information to determine the sufficiency of complaints and to resolve the merits of disputes between the parties. The Commission bases its orders in formal complaint proceedings upon evidence and argument produced by the parties in accordance with the Formal Complaint Rules. If the information were not collected, the Commission would not be able to resolve common carrier-related complaint proceedings, as required by section 208 of the Act.
In addition, the Commission has adopted most of this formal complaint process to govern data roaming complaints. Specifically, the Commission has extended, as applicable, the procedural rules in the Commission's Part I, Subpart E rules, 47 CFR 1.716-1.718, 1.720, 1.721, and 1.723-1.735, to disputes arising out of the data roaming rule contained in 47 CFR 20.12(e). Therefore, in addition to being necessary to resolve common carrier-related complaint proceedings, this collection of information is also necessary to resolve data roaming-related complaint proceedings.
Federal Maritime Commission.
September 20, 2017; 10:00 a.m.
800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
The meeting agenda originally published September 18, 2017, 82 FR 43541, is revised to add item 2 in the Open Session. The change was made upon a unanimous vote of the Commission. Parts of this meeting will be open to the public and streamed live at
1. Briefing by Commissioner Dye on the Supply Chain Innovation Teams and Update from Global Liner Shipping Asia Conference.
2. Updates from Acting Chairman Khouri on United States—European Union and United States—United Kingdom Maritime Bilateral Discussions and London International Shipping Week.
3. Staff Briefing on Review Process for Carrier and Marine Terminal Operator Agreements.
1. Staff Update on Petition of the Coalition for Fair Port Practices (P4-16).
Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary, (202) 523 5725.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 18, 2017.
1.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the FTC Performance Review Board.
Vicki Barber, Chief Human Capital Officer, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2700.
Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance pay adjustments to the Chairman.
The following individuals have been designated to serve on the Commission's Performance Review Board:
By direction of the Commission.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, (BSC, OPHPR). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates up to 75 people. Public participants should pre-register for the meeting as described below.
Members of the public that wish to attend this meeting in person should pre-register by submitting the following information by email, facsimile, or phone (see Contact Person for More Information) no later than 12:00 noon (EDT) on Tuesday, October 23, 2017:
The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting via Adobe Connect. Pre-registration is required by clicking the links below.
The meeting will be held on October 30, 2017, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., ET; October 31, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., ET.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B3, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329.
Dometa Ouisley, Office of Science and Public Health Practice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-44, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone: (404) 639-7450; Facsimile: (404) 471-8772; Email:
Day two of the meeting will cover briefings and BSC deliberation on the following topics: OPHPR Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Stories Project; Public Health Preparedness and Response Social Media and Communications Metrics; Incident Management Training Development Program updates, OPHPR Practice-based Research Agenda and Synthesis and Translation of Public Health Preparedness and Response Research. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Study to Explore Early Development, Teen Follow-Up Study (SEED Teen)—New—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in social interaction and communication and stereotyped behaviors and interests. The U.S. prevalence of ASD is estimated at 1% to 2%. In addition to the profound, lifelong impacts on individuals' functioning given the core deficits in social-communication abilities, a high proportion of children with ASD also have one or more other developmental impairments such as intellectual disability or attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder and children with ASDs have higher than expected prevalences of health conditions such as obesity, asthma and respiratory disorders, eczema and skin allergies, migraine headaches, and gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders.
Historically, young children have been the focus of ASD research: Diagnosis and symptom detection at young ages, prenatal or early-life risk factors, and the effect of early intervention programs. Meanwhile, the number of children diagnosed with ASD each year has steadily increased and, as children age, the prevalence of adults diagnosed with ASD will likewise increase for several decades. Despite this ongoing demographic shift—which some have called “the autism tsunami”—there has been relatively
While there is research showing that the majority of ASD diagnoses made in early childhood are retained in adolescence with mostly stable in symptom severity, there are major gaps in our understanding of the health, functioning, and experiences of adolescents with ASD and other developmental disabilities. Many of these topics are especially relevant to public health: Adolescents and adults with ASD have been shown to have frequent health problems, high healthcare utilization and specialized service needs, high caregiving burden, require substantial supports to perform daily activities, are likely to be bullied, or isolated from society, and are likely to have food allergies or put on restrictive diets of questionable benefit. Many of these problems emerge after early childhood, and more studies are needed to estimate the frequency, severity, and predictive factors for these important outcomes in diverse cohorts of individuals with autism and other developmental conditions.
SEED Teen is a follow-up study of children who participated in the first phase of the SEED case-control study (SEED 1) in 2007-2011 when they were 2 to 5 years of age. SEED includes one of the largest cohorts of children assembled with ASD. Children will be identified from four SEED sites in Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Three groups of children will be included: Children with ASD, children with other developmental (non-ASD) conditions (DD comparison group), and children from the general population who were initially sampled from birth records (POP comparison group).
The children and parents previously enrolled in SEED 1 represent a unique opportunity to better understand the long term trajectory of children identified as having ASD at early ages. Mothers or other primary caregivers who participated in SEED 1 will be re-contacted when their child is 13-17 years of age and asked to complete two self-administered questionnaires (SEED Teen Health and Development Survey and the Social Responsiveness Scale) about their child's health, development, education, and current functioning. Information from this study will allow researchers to assess the long term health and functioning of children with ASD and other developmental disabilities, family impacts associated with ASD and other DDs, and service needs and use associated with having and ASD and other DDs, particularly during the teen years.
We estimate that 1,410 SEED families are potentially eligible to participate in SEED Teen. Reading the letter and other materials in the invitation mailing will take approximately five minutes. We estimate that a minimum of 60% of parents/caregivers will be sent the invitation mailing or will be successfully contacted and participate in the invitation call (approximately 15 minutes). We estimate that 80% of the families who participate in the invitation call will meet the eligibility criteria for SEED Teen and 70% of those will enroll in SEED Teen. We assume all enrolled families will complete the follow-up call to confirm data collection packet receipt (approximately 10 minutes) and will review the materials in the data collection packet. Finally, we estimate that 90% of enrolled parents/caregivers will complete two self-administered questionnaires (SEED Teen Health and Development Survey and the Social Responsiveness Scale) and two supplemental consent forms. The two questionnaires will take approximately 60 minutes to complete, plus an additional 5 minutes to read and sign the informed consent. Therefore, we estimate the total burden hours are 303.
There are no costs to participants other than their time.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of 27 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The holders of the applications notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945.
The holders of the applications listed in table 1 have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in table 1, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective October 23, 2017. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in table 1 that are in inventory on the date that this notice becomes effective (see the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The public meeting will be held on October 13, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-5255. The docket will close on October 12, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by October 12, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 12, 2017. The
Comments received on or before September 28, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information
LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact LaToya Bonner at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “FDA-University of Maryland CERSI Drug Development in Pediatric Heart Failure: Extrapolation, Clinical Trial Design, and Endpoints.” The purpose of the public workshop is to address challenges related to the evaluation of products in pediatric heart failure including population to study, endpoints, and extrapolation of adult efficacy data. The workshop will also provide a forum for discussion on the use of registry data, as well as alternative trial designs and statistical methods.
The public workshop will be held on Friday, October 27, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503A, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Jacquline Yancy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6319, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7068,
The purpose of this public workshop is to provide an opportunity for relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, academia, industry, and FDA, to discuss alternative trial designs for product development in pediatric heart failure.
Specifically, the workshop will include application of pediatric extrapolation in drug development for pediatric heart failure and a discussion of alternative approaches to establishing effectiveness in pediatric heart failure, including the use of Bayesian approaches. Cases will be presented to exemplify various approaches.
The agenda is located at
There is a registration fee to attend this public workshop in person. Seats are limited and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. The cost to attend in person is as follows:
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jacquline Yancy (see
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we), together with the NARMS partner agencies, is announcing a public meeting entitled “2017 Scientific Meeting of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.” The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss the current status of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) and directions for the future.
The public meeting will be held on October 24 and 25, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by November 24, 2017. See the
The public meeting will be held at the Jefferson Auditorium in the South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 14th and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. The South Building is a Federal facility, and attendees should plan adequate time to pass through the security screening systems. Attendance is free. Non-USDA employees must enter through the Wing 3 entrance on Independence Avenue. Attendees must be pre-registered for the meeting (and check-in outside the day of the meeting) and show a valid photo ID to enter the building. Only registered attendees will be permitted to enter the building. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Laura Bradbard, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl. (HFV-1), Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5672, email:
NARMS periodically conducts public meetings to inform stakeholders of NARMS activities and receive comments on ways to improve. The last NARMS public meeting (held in 2014) focused on the achievement of several 2012-2016 NARMS Strategic Plan objectives and interagency research. The purpose of this meeting will be to summarize NARMS progress since that meeting, to present recommendations made by the recent FDA Science Board review of NARMS in 2017, and to explore new directions for NARMS within a One Health paradigm. Items that will be discussed during this meeting include an update on the development of new analytical and reporting tools, the latest advances in the use of DNA sequencing technologies, and new surveillance results. The meeting agenda will be posted no later than 5 days before the meeting at
In addition to discussion generated through this public meeting, FDA and the NARMS partners are interested in receiving stakeholder input on the following questions through electronic or written comments, which can be submitted to the Dockets Management Staff (see
1. Recently, NARMS modified its Integrated Reports and online data display tools (
2. How can NARMS accomplish better stakeholder engagement, which modes of engagement are preferred, and how frequent?
3. Where should the NARMS program focus over the next 5-10 years? What are the top three gaps in the NARMS program and how should they be addressed?
4. Which of the Science Board recommendations do you see as highest priority, and how should they be achieved?
At the conclusion of this meeting, a separate interagency meeting on whole genome sequencing will be held in the Jefferson Auditorium on October 26 and 27, 2017. A notice will be published in the
There is no fee to register for the public meeting, but pre-registration by October 10, 2017, is mandatory for participants attending in person. Onsite registration will not be permitted. Early registration is recommended as space is limited. All attendees must pre-register online by emailing
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of award.
HRSA announces the award of an extension in the amount of $2,000,000 for the Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID) Newborn Screening program at the Jeffrey Modell Foundation (JMF). The extension will allow JMF, the cooperative agreement recipient, during the budget period of May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018, to provide technical assistance and support to states for the implementation of population based newborn screening for SCID.
Jill F. Shuger, ScM, Division of Services for Children with Special Health Needs, MCHB, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Phone: (301) 443-3247, Email:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B Subcommittee.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 10, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 10, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Florida resulting from Hurricane Irma beginning on September 4, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance, assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. For a period of 30 days from the start of the incident period, you are authorized to fund assistance for emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, at 100 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funding for debris removal will remain at 75 percent.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justo Hernández, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Charlotte, Collier, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties for Individual Assistance.
All 67 counties in the State of Florida for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
All areas within the State of Florida are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 13, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
Polk County for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 11, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
Broward and Palm Beach Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued September 11, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
Clay, Duval, Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Florida (FEMA-3385-EM), dated September 5, 2017, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued September 5, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated September 5, 2017, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Florida resulting from Hurricane Irma beginning on September 4, 2017, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justo Hernández, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
All 67 counties in the State Florida for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of new Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to establish a new DHS CBP system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS).” As a new SORN in the CBP inventory, CBP will carefully consider public comments, apply appropriate revisions, and republish the CIRS SORN, if necessary, within 180 days of receipt of comments. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is also published in this issue of the
Submit comments on or before October 23, 2017. This new system will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses will be effective October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0027 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: Debra L. Danisek (202) 344-1610, CBP Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records.”
The CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) system of records is owned by CBP's Office of Intelligence (OI). CIRS contains information collected by CBP to support CBP's law enforcement intelligence mission. This information includes raw intelligence information collected by CBP's OI, public source information, and information initially collected by CBP pursuant to its immigration and customs authorities. This information is analyzed and incorporated into intelligence products. CBP currently uses the Analytical Framework for Intelligence (AFI) and the Intelligence Reporting System (IRS) information technology (IT) systems to facilitate the development of finished intelligence products. These products are disseminated to various stakeholders including CBP executive management, CBP operational units, various government agencies, and the Intelligence Community (IC).
CIRS is the exclusive CBP System of Records Notice for finished intelligence products and any raw intelligence information, public source information, or other information collected by CBP for an intelligence purpose that is not subject to an existing DHS SORN. Information collected by CBP for an intelligence purpose that is not covered by an existing DHS SORN and is not incorporated into a finished intelligence product is retained and disseminated in accordance with this SORN. In addition, finished intelligence products, and the information contained in those products, regardless of the original source system of that information, is retained and disseminated in accordance with this SORN. CIRS records were previously covered by the Automated Targeting System SORN and the Analytical Framework for Intelligence System SORN.
As part of the intelligence process, CBP investigators and analysts must review large amounts of data to identify and understand relationships between individuals, entities, threats, and events to generate law enforcement intelligence products that provide CBP operational units with actionable information for law enforcement purposes. If performed manually, this process can involve hours of analysis of voluminous data. To automate and expedite this process, CBP uses several IT systems to allow for the efficient research and analysis of data from a variety of sources. Existing IT systems that CBP uses to analyze and produce intelligence information include AFI and IRS.
AFI is specifically designed to make the intelligence research and analysis process more efficient by allowing searches of a broad range of data through a single interface. AFI can also identify links (relationships) between individuals or entities based on commonalities, such as identification numbers, addresses, or other information. These commonalities in and of themselves are not suspicious, but in the context of additional information they sometimes help DHS agents and analysts to identify potentially criminal activity and identify other suspicious activities. These commonalities can also form the basis for a DHS-generated intelligence product that may lead to further investigation or other appropriate follow-up action by CBP, DHS, or other federal, state, or local agencies. DHS/CBP has published a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for AFI, which is available on
Individuals may request information about records pertaining to themselves stored in CIRS as outlined in the “Notification Procedure” section below. CBP reserves the right to exempt various records from release pursuant to exemptions 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1) and (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/CBP-024 CIRS System of Records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/CBP may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this SORN.
Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/CBP-024 Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-024 CBP Intelligence Records System (CIRS) System of Records.
Unclassified, Sensitive, For Official Use Only, Law Enforcement—Sensitive, and Classified.
CBP maintains CIRS records at the CBP Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices. CBP uses the Analytical Framework for Intelligence (AFI) and the Intelligence Reporting System (IRS) to facilitate the development of finished intelligence products and maintain a repository of intelligence information records. Records may also be stored on paper within the Office of Intelligence (OI) or in CBP field offices.
Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Intelligence, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229.
Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296), as amended by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638); the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-125); the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 1101,
This system of records allows CBP to collect and consolidate information from multiple sources, including law enforcement agencies and agencies of the U.S. Intelligence Community, in order to enhance CBP's ability to: Identify, apprehend, or prosecute individuals who pose a potential law enforcement or security risk; aid in the enforcement of the customs and immigration laws, and other laws enforced by DHS at the border; and enhance U.S. border security.
CBP maintains intelligence information to:
(a) Support CBP's collection, analysis, reporting, and distribution of law enforcement, immigration administration, terrorism, intelligence, and homeland security information in support of CBP's law enforcement, customs and immigration, counterterrorism, national security, and other homeland security missions.
(b) Produce law enforcement intelligence reporting that provides actionable information to CBP's law enforcement and immigration administration personnel and to other appropriate government agencies.
(c) Enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the research and analysis process for DHS law enforcement, immigration, and intelligence personnel through information technology tools that provide for advanced search and analysis of various datasets.
(d) Identify potential criminal activity, violations of federal law, and threats to homeland security; provide overall situational awareness for the CBP enterprise; to uphold and enforce the law; and to ensure public safety.
Categories of individuals covered by this system include the following:
1. Individuals (
2. Individuals associated with law enforcement investigations or activities conducted by other federal, state, tribal, territorial, local, or foreign agencies when there is a potential nexus to national security, CBP's law enforcement responsibilities, or homeland security in general;
3. Individuals known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism;
4. Individuals involved in, associated with, or who have reported suspicious activities, threats, or other incidents reported by domestic and foreign government agencies, multinational or non-governmental organizations, critical infrastructure owners and operators, private sector entities and organizations, and individuals;
5. Individuals not implicated in narcotics trafficking or related activities, but with pertinent knowledge of some circumstance of a case or record subject. Such records may contain any information, including personal identification data, that may assist CBP in discharging its responsibilities generally (
6. Individuals who are the subjects of or otherwise identified in classified or unclassified intelligence reporting received or reviewed by CBP OI;
7. Individuals identified in law enforcement, intelligence, crime, and incident reports (including financial reports under the Bank Secrecy Act and law enforcement bulletins) produced by DHS and other government agencies;
8. Individuals identified in U.S. visa, border, immigration, and naturalization benefit data, including arrival and departure data;
9. Individuals identified in DHS law enforcement and immigration records;
10. Individuals not authorized to work in the United States;
11. Individuals whose passports have been lost or stolen; and
12. Individuals identified in public news reports.
Categories of records in this system include information collected by CBP for an intelligence purpose that is not covered by an existing DHS SORN and finished intelligence products. This information may include:
1. Biographic information (name, date of birth, Social Security number, alien registration number, citizenship/immigration status, passport information, addresses, phone numbers, etc.);
2. Records of immigration enforcement activities or law enforcement investigations/activities;
3. Information (including documents and electronic data) collected by CBP from or about individuals during investigative activities and border searches;
4. Records of immigration enforcement activities and law enforcement investigations/activities that have a possible nexus to CBP's law enforcement and immigration enforcement responsibilities or homeland security in general;
5. Law enforcement, intelligence, crime, and incident reports (including financial reports under the Bank Secrecy Act and law enforcement bulletins) produced by DHS and other government agencies;
6. U.S. visa, border, immigration, and naturalization benefit data, including arrival and departure data;
7. Terrorist watchlist information and other terrorism-related information regarding threats, activities, and incidents;
8. Lost and stolen passport data;
9. Records pertaining to known or suspected terrorists, terrorist incidents, activities, groups, and threats;
10. CBP-generated intelligence requirements, analysis, reporting, and briefings;
11. Information from investigative and intelligence reports prepared by law enforcement agencies and agencies of the U.S. foreign intelligence community;
12. Articles, public-source data (including information from social media), and other published information on individuals and events of interest to CBP;
13. Audio and video records retained in support of CBP's law enforcement, national security, or other homeland security missions;
14. Records and information from government data systems or retrieved from commercial data providers in the course of intelligence research, analysis, and reporting;
15. Reports of suspicious activities, threats, or other incidents generated by CBP or third parties;
16. Additional information about confidential sources or informants; and
17. Metadata, which may include but is not limited to transaction date, time, location, and frequency.
Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or other domestic agencies, foreign agencies, multinational or non-governmental organizations, critical infrastructure owners and operators, private sector entities and organizations, individuals, commercial data providers, and public sources such as social media, news media outlets, and the Internet.
CBP will abide by the safeguards, retention schedules, and dissemination requirements of DHS source system SORNs to the extent those systems are applicable and the information is not incorporated into a finished intelligence product. For additional information, please see the Privacy Impact Assessment for the Analytical Framework for Intelligence and the forthcoming Privacy Impact Assessment for the Intelligence Reporting System.
Source data are to be handled consistent with the published system of records notice as noted in “Source Category Records.” Source data that is not part of or incorporated into a finished intelligence product, a response to a request for information (RFI), project, or the index shall not be disclosed external to DHS. The routine uses below apply only to finished intelligence products, responses to RFIs, projects, and responsive compilations of the index and only as explicitly stated in each routine use.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist another federal recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach; or
2. DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records; and (a) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, harm to DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To appropriate federal, state, local, international, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, license, or treaty when DHS determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws.
H. To a federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, international, or foreign government agency or entity for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity: (1) To assist in making a determination regarding redress for an individual in connection with the operations of a DHS component or program; (2) for the purpose of verifying the identity of an individual seeking redress in connection with the operations of a DHS component or program; or (3) for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested such redress on behalf of another individual.
I. To a former employee of DHS, in accordance with applicable regulations, for purposes of responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state or local government entity or professional licensing authority; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes when the Department requires information or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
J. To an appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to the agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual or the issuance, grant, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit; or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit and when disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person receiving the information.
K. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations for the purpose of protecting the vital interests of a data subject or other persons, including to assist such agencies or organizations in preventing exposure to or transmission of a communicable or quarantinable disease or to combat other significant public health threats; appropriate notice will be provided of any identified health risk.
L. To a public or professional licensing organization when such information indicates, either by itself or in combination with other information, a violation or potential violation of professional standards, or reflects on the moral, educational, or professional qualifications of an individual who is licensed or who is seeking to become licensed.
M. To a federal, state, tribal, local, or foreign government agency or organization, or international organization, lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement intelligence information, whether civil or criminal, or charged with investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing civil or criminal laws, related rules, regulations or orders, to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities, including the collection of law enforcement intelligence.
N. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, license, or treaty when DHS determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil, criminal, or regulatory laws.
O. To third parties during the course of an investigation by DHS, a proceeding within the purview of the immigration and nationality laws, or a matter under DHS's jurisdiction, to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the disclosure.
P. To a federal, state, or local agency, or other appropriate entity or individual, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to provide intelligence, counterintelligence, or other information for the purposes of intelligence, counterintelligence, or antiterrorism activities authorized by U.S. law, Executive Order, or other applicable national security directive.
Q. To federal and foreign government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies when DHS reasonably believes there to be a threat or potential threat to national or international security for which the information may be useful in countering the threat or potential threat, when DHS reasonably believes such use is to assist in anti-terrorism efforts, and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
R. To an organization or individual in either the public or private sector, either foreign or domestic, when there is a reason to believe that the recipient is or could become the target of a particular terrorist activity or conspiracy, to the extent the information is relevant to the protection of life or property and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
S. To the Department of State in the processing of petitions or applications for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and all other immigration and nationality laws including treaties and reciprocal agreements.
T. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer, when DHS is aware of a need to use relevant data for purposes of testing new technology and systems designed to enhance national security or identify other violations of law.
V. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
DHS/CBP stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
DHS/CBP may retrieve records by personal identifiers such as but not limited to name, alien registration number, phone number, address, Social Security number, or passport number. DHS/CBP may retrieve records by non-personal information such as transaction date, entity/institution name, description of goods, value of transactions, and other information.
To the extent that CBP accesses and incorporates information from other DHS systems of records as sources of information for finished intelligence products, CBP will abide by the safeguards, retention schedules, and dissemination requirements of those underlying source systems of record. For additional information, please see the Privacy Impact Assessment for the Analytical Framework for Intelligence and the forthcoming Privacy Impact Assessment for the Intelligence Reporting System.
Consistent with the DHS N1-563-07-016 records schedule, CBP will retain information consistent with the same retention requirements of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis:
1. Dissemination Files and Lists: CBP will retain finished and current intelligence report information distributed to support the Intelligence Community, DHS Components, and federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign Governments and includes contact information for the distribution of finished and current intelligence reports for two (2) years.
2. Raw Reporting Files: CBP will retain raw, unevaluated information on threat reporting originating from operational data and supporting documentation that are not covered by an existing DHS system of records for thirty (30) years.
3. Finished Intelligence Case Files: CBP will retain finished intelligence and associated background material for products such as Warning Products identifying imminent homeland security threats, Assessments providing intelligence analysis on specific topics, executive products providing intelligence reporting to senior leadership, intelligence summaries about current intelligence events, and periodic reports containing intelligence awareness information for specific region, sector, or subject/area of interest as permanent records and will transfer the records to the NARA after twenty (20) years.
4. Requests for Information/Data Calls: CBP will retain requests for information and corresponding research, responses, and supporting documentation for ten (10) years.
DHS/CBP safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS/CBP has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of
The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act, and the Judicial Redress Act if applicable, because it is a law enforcement system. However, DHS/CBP will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and CBP Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief FOIA Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered JRA records, see “Record Access Procedures” above. For records not covered by the Privacy Act or JRA, individuals may submit an inquiry to the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) at
See “Record Access Procedures.”
The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) and (k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), and (e)(4)(H); (e)(4)(I), and (f). When this system receives a record from another system exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1); (k)(2); or (j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.
None.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0001, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves air carriers maintaining an accounting system to account for the passenger civil aviation security service fees collected and reporting this information to TSA on a quarterly basis, as well as retaining the data used for these reports for three fiscal years.
Send your comments by November 20, 2017.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and EO 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
The September 11th Security Fee is used to help defray the costs of providing Federal services including civil aviation security services. This information collection requires air carriers to submit to TSA the amount of September 11th Security Fees an air carrier has imposed, collected, refunded to passengers, and remitted to TSA. The retention of this data is necessary for TSA to ensure the proper imposition, collection, and regulation the Security Fee. Additionally, TSA collects the information to monitor carrier compliance with the fee requirements and for auditing purposes. Air carriers are required to retain this information for three years. Specifically, information collected during a given fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) must be retained through three subsequent fiscal years. For example, information collected during fiscal year 2017 must be retained through fiscal year 2020.
TSA rules require air carriers to impose and collect the fee on passengers, and to submit the fee to TSA by the final day of the calendar month following the month in which the fee was collected. 49 CFR 1510.13. Air carriers are further required to submit quarterly reports to TSA, which indicate the amount of the fees imposed, collected, and refunded to passengers, and remitted to TSA. 49 CFR 1510.17. In December 2013, the fee was statutorily restructured to be based on one-way trips rather than enplanements. The statute was further amended in December 2014 to include a round-trip limitation on the security service fee. TSA published two interim final rules (IFRs)
Each air carrier that collects security service fees from more than 50,000 passengers annually is also required under 49 CFR 1510.15 to submit to TSA an annual independent audit, performed by an independent certified public accountant, of its security service fee activities and accounts. Although the annual independent audit requirements were suspended on January 23, 2003 (68 FR 3192), TSA conducts its own audits of the air carriers. 49 CFR 1510.11. Notwithstanding the suspension of the audit requirements, air carriers must establish and maintain an accounting system to account for the security service fees imposed, collected, refunded to passengers and remitted to TSA. 49 CFR 1510.15(a).
TSA is seeking an extension of this collection to require air carriers to continue submitting the quarterly reports to TSA, and to require air carriers to retain the information for three fiscal years after the fiscal year in which the information was collected. This requirement includes retaining the source information for the quarterly reports remitted to TSA as well as the calculations performed to create the reports submitted to TSA. Should the annual audit requirement be reinstated, the requirement would include information and documents reviewed and prepared for the independent audit; the accountant's working papers, notes, worksheets, and other relevant documentation used in the audit; and, if applicable, the specific information leading to the accountant's opinion, including any determination that the accountant could not provide an audit opinion. Although TSA suspended the independent audit requirement, TSA conducts audits of the air carriers, and therefore, requires air carriers to retain and provide the same information as required for the quarterly reports and independent audits.
TSA has incorporated minor adjustments to the figures used to estimate the costs of this ICR. The adjustments consider changes in the number of regulated air carriers and various administrative cost rates since the previous extension. TSA estimates that 195 total respondent air carriers will each spend approximately 1 hour to prepare and submit each quarterly report. TSA estimates that these respondents will incur a total of 780 hours (195 carriers × 4 quarterly reports × 1 hour per report) to satisfy the quarterly reporting requirements annually.
Should TSA reinstate the audit requirement, TSA estimates that 105 air carriers, of the 195 total respondent carriers that collect fees from more than 50,000 passengers annually, would be required to submit annual audits. These carriers would take approximately 20 hours for audit preparation, for a total of 2,100 hours (105 carriers × 20 hours per audit) annually.
TSA estimates 300 total responses from all respondent air carriers (195 plus 105, should the annual audit requirement be reinstated), with 2,880 burden hours (780 hours for quarterly reports and 2,100 hours for audits) annually to satisfy the quarterly report and audit requirements.
TSA estimates that the 195 air carriers will each incur an average cost of $413.76 annually to satisfy the quarterly reporting requirement. This estimate includes $340.80 in labor for preparation of each quarterly report (4 reports × $85.20 per hour, each quarterly report is estimated to take 1 hour to prepare), $71.00 in annual records storage related costs, and $1.96 for postage to submit the report (4 stamps at 49 cents each). TSA estimates an aggregate annual cost of $80,683.20 ($413.76 cost × 195 air carriers) for all air carriers to prepare, store, and submit quarterly reports and a cost of $242,049.60 for the three-year extension period requested.
Should TSA reinstate the annual audit requirement, TSA estimates that 105 air carriers would be required to submit annual audits and would incur an average cost of $3,187.30 per audit. This estimate includes $3,112.80 in labor for preparation of each audit (20 hours per report × $155.64 per hour), $71.00 in annual records storage related costs, and $3.50 for postage to submit the report. TSA estimates an aggregate annual cost of $22,322.26 ($3,187.30 cost × 105 air carriers × .0667 likelihood of audit to occur) for all air carriers to
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Through this Notice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) is extending the designation of South Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, from November 3, 2017, through May 2, 2019. This Notice also sets forth procedures necessary for nationals of South Sudan (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) to re-register for TPS and to apply for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). USCIS will issue new EADs with a May 2, 2019 expiration date to eligible South Sudan TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs under this extension. Provided a South Sudan TPS beneficiary timely re-registers and properly files an application for an EAD during the 60-day re-registration period, his or her EAD will be automatically extended for an additional period not to exceed 180 days from the date the current EAD expires,
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
• You can also contact Alexander King, Branch Chief, Waivers and Temporary Services Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-8377 (this is not a toll-free number).
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
The extension allows currently eligible TPS beneficiaries to retain TPS through May 2, 2019, so long as they otherwise continue to meet the eligibility requirements for TPS. The Secretary determined that an extension of the current designation of South Sudan for TPS is warranted because the ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions that prompted the 2016 TPS redesignation have persisted, and in some cases deteriorated, and would pose a serious threat to the personal safety of South Sudanese nationals if they were required to return to their country. The Secretary also has determined that permitting such South Sudanese nationals to continue to remain in the United States is not contrary to the national interest of the United States.
Through this Notice, DHS sets forth procedures necessary for eligible nationals of South Sudan (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) to re-register under the extension if they already have TPS and to apply for renewal of their EADs with USCIS. Certain individuals may be eligible to file a late initial application for TPS if they meet the conditions described in 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2). Information on late initial filing is also available on the USCIS TPS Web site link at
For individuals who have already been granted TPS, the 60-day re-registration period runs from September 21, 2017 through November 20, 2017. USCIS will issue new EADs with a May 2, 2019 expiration date to eligible South Sudan TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs under this extension. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on November 2, 2017. However, provided a South Sudan TPS beneficiary timely re-registers and properly files an application for an EAD during the 60-day re-registration period, his or her EAD will be automatically extended for an additional period not to exceed 180 days from the date the current EAD expires,
Individuals who have a pending initial South Sudan TPS application will not need to file a new Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821). DHS provides additional instructions in this Notice for individuals whose TPS applications remain pending and who would like to obtain an EAD valid through May 2, 2019.
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.
• During the TPS designation period and so long as a TPS beneficiary continues to meet the requirements of TPS, he or she is eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and is authorized to work and obtain an EAD.
• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.
• The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to the same immigration status they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status has since expired or been terminated), or to any other lawfully obtained immigration status they received while registered for TPS that is still valid on the date TPS terminates.
On October 13, 2011, the Secretary designated South Sudan for TPS, effective November 3, 2011, based on an ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions within South Sudan.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the U.S. Government (Government), to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
DHS and the Department of State (DOS) have reviewed conditions in South Sudan. Based on the reviews and after consulting with DOS, the Secretary has determined that an 18-month extension is warranted because the ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions that prompted the May 3, 2016 redesignation have persisted, and, in many cases, deteriorated.
South Sudan is engulfed in an ongoing civil war marked by brutal violence against civilians, egregious human rights violations and abuses, and a humanitarian disaster on a devastating scale across the country. In July 2016, following a failed peace agreement, fighting broke out in Juba between the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and the Sudan People's Liberation Army—In Opposition (SPLA-IO). During and after the battle, there were widespread attacks on civilians, including ethnically based killings and sexual assaults, resulting in significant displacement. After the battle ended in Juba, violence escalated and expanded to other parts of the country, with the government's counter-insurgency operations reportedly entailing mass atrocities and destruction of villages.
Women and children have been particularly affected by the conflict. Sexual and gender-based violence is widespread, and rape is used widely as a weapon of war. In March 2017, the United Nations Human Rights Council reported that there had been a 61 percent increase in the number of incidents of sexual or gender-based violence reported between 2015 and 2016. The conflict has deprived children of education and basic health services, and left them at risk of being killed, abducted, sexually assaulted, and recruited as child soldiers.
South Sudan is the largest source of displacement in Africa. At the end of August 2017, approximately 3.9 million people had been displaced, including 2 million who fled to neighboring states and 1.9 million internally displaced persons, of which at least 50 percent were children.
South Sudan is experiencing an unprecedented level of food insecurity due to the protracted violence, displacement, and the lack of access for humanitarian actors to deliver aid. As of August 2017, about 50 percent of the population (6 million people) was estimated to be acutely food insecure.
In addition to the ongoing conflict, South Sudan is experiencing a severe economic crisis. In 2016, the South Sudanese pound depreciated 70 percent against the dollar. Year-on-year inflation from January 2016 to January 2017 was around 400 percent.
Based upon this review and after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, the Secretary has determined that:
• The conditions that prompted the 2016 redesignation of South Sudan for TPS continue to be met.
• There continues to be an ongoing armed conflict in South Sudan and, due to such conflict, requiring the return of South Sudanese nationals (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) to South Sudan would pose a serious threat to their personal safety.
• There continue to be extraordinary and temporary conditions in South Sudan that prevent South Sudanese nationals (or aliens having no
• It is not contrary to the national interest of the United States to permit South Sudanese (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan) who meet the eligibility requirements of TPS to remain in the United States temporarily.
• The designation of South Sudan for TPS should be extended for an 18-month period from November 3, 2017, through May 2, 2019.
By the authority vested in me as Secretary under INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, I have determined, after consultation with the appropriate Government agencies, that the conditions that prompted the redesignation of TPS for South Sudan in 2016 not only continue to be met, but have significantly deteriorated.
To file a late initial registration or re-register for TPS based on the designation of South Sudan, you must submit each of the following applications:
1. Application for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821):
• If you are filing a late initial application, you must pay the fee (or request a fee waiver) for the Form I-821.
• If you are filing an application for re-registration, you do not need to pay the fee for the Form I-821.
2. Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765):
• If you are applying for late initial registration and want an EAD, you must pay the fee (or request a fee waiver) for the Form I-765 only if you are age 14 through 65. You do not need to pay the Form I-765 fee if you are under the age of 14 or are 66 and older, applying for late initial registration and you want an EAD.
• If you are applying for re-registration and want an EAD, you must pay the fee (or request a fee waiver) for the Form I-765, regardless of your age.
• If you are applying for late initial registration or re-registration and do not want an EAD, you do not have to pay the Form I-765 fee.
• If you do not want to request an EAD now, you may also file Form I-765 later to request an EAD and pay the fee (or request a fee waiver), provided that you still have TPS or a pending TPS application. Your EAD application will be considered timely filed even if the date on your current TPS-related EAD has expired. But unless you timely re-register and properly file an EAD application, the validity of your current EAD will end on November 2, 2017. Accordingly, you must also properly file your EAD application during the 60-day re-registration period for your current employment authorization document to be automatically extended for 180 days (
You must submit both completed Forms I-821 and I-765 together. If you are unable to pay for the application fee and/or biometrics fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS Web page at
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years of age or older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may apply for a fee waiver by completing a Form I-912 or by submitting a personal letter requesting a fee waiver, and providing satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please see the Instructions to Form I-821 or visit the USCIS Web site at
You should file as soon as possible within the 60-day period so that USCIS can process your application and issue any EAD promptly. Properly filing early will also allow you time to re-file your application before the deadline and receive a Form I-797C demonstrating your EAD's automatic extension, should USCIS deny your fee waiver request. If, however, you receive a denial of your fee waiver request and you are unable to re-file by the re-registration deadline, you may still re-file your application. This situation will be reviewed to determine whether you have established good cause for late re-registration. However, you are urged to re-file within 45 days of the date on any USCIS fee waiver denial notice, if at all possible.
Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and wish to request an EAD or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. When re-registering and/or requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will aid in the verification of your grant of TPS and processing of your application, as USCIS may not have received records of your grant of TPS by either the IJ or the BIA.
If one or more of the questions listed in Part 4, Question 2 of the Form I-821 applies to you, then you must submit an explanation on a separate sheet(s) of paper and/or additional documentation.
To get case status information about your TPS application, including the status of a request for an EAD, you can check Case Status Online, available at
Provided that you currently have a South Sudan TPS-based EAD, you may be eligible to have the validity of your current EAD extended for 180 days (through May 1, 2018) if you:
• Are a national of South Sudan (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in South Sudan);
• Received an EAD under the designation of South Sudan for TPS;
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of November 2, 2017, bearing the notation “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category;”
• Timely re-registered for TPS during the 60-day re-registration period; and
• Properly filed an application for an EAD during the 60-day re-registration period.
You must timely re-register for TPS in accordance with the procedures described in this Notice if you would like to maintain your TPS and in order to have the validity of your current EAD extended by 180 days. You are strongly encouraged to file your EAD renewal application as early as possible during the 60-day re-registration period to avoid lapses in documentation of your employment authorization.
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9. You can find additional detailed information about Form I-9 on the USCIS I-9 Central Web page at
You may present any document from List A (which provides evidence of both identity and employment authorization), or one document from List B (which provides evidence of your identity) together with one document from List C (which is evidence of employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. An EAD is an acceptable document under List A. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date.
If your EAD has an expiration date of November 2, 2017, and states “A-12” or “C-19” under “Category,” and you timely and properly filed an EAD renewal application during the 60-day re-registration period, you may choose to present your EAD to your employer together with the Form I-797C Notice of Action (showing the qualifying eligibility category of either A12 or C19) as a List A document that provides evidence of your identity and employment authorization for Form I-9 through May 1, 2018, unless your TPS has been finally withdrawn or your request for TPS has been finally denied. See the subsection titled, “
To minimize confusion over this extension at the time of hire, you should explain to your employer that your EAD has been automatically extended through May 1, 2018. You may also provide your employer with a copy of this
Even though you may be eligible to have your EAD automatically extended, your employer will need to ask you about your continued employment authorization no later than before you start work on November 3, 2017 to meet its responsibilities for Form I-9. You
When you properly file your Form I-765 to renew your current EAD, you will receive a USCIS receipt notice (Form I-797C). The receipt notice will state that your current “A-12” or “C-19” coded EAD is automatically extended for 180 days. You may show this receipt notice to your employer along with your EAD to confirm your EAD has been automatically extended through May 1, 2018, unless your TPS has been finally withdrawn or your request for TPS has been finally denied. You may also show this
The last date of the automatic EAD extension is May 1, 2018. Before you start work on May 2, 2018, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Form I-9 Instructions to reverify employment authorization. Your employer should either complete Section 3 of the Form I-9 originally completed for you; or if this section has already been completed or if the version of Form I-9 has expired (check the date in the bottom left-hand corner of the form), complete Section 3 of a new Form I-9, ensuring it is the most current version. Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document you must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.
No. When completing Form I-9, including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the appropriate “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9 that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of South Sudanese citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If the expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 is presented with the Form I-797C Notice of Action as described herein, an employer should accept this document combination as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee. Refer to the Note to Employees section of this Notice for important information about your rights if your employer rejects lawful documentation, requires additional documentation, or otherwise discriminates against you based on your citizenship or immigration status, or your national origin.
As proof of the automatic extension of your employment authorization, you may present your expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action showing that the EAD renewal application was timely filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A-12 or C-19. Unless your TPS has been finally withdrawn or your request for TPS has been finally denied, this document combination is considered an unexpired Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766) under List A. When completing Form I-9 for a new job you are starting before May 2, 2018, you and your employer should do the following:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work until” and enter the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires (May 1, 2018) as the “expiration date, if applicable, mm/dd/yyyy”; and
b. Enter your Alien Number/USCIS number or A-Number where indicated (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS Number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix).
2. When completing Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19;
• The “received date” on Form I-797 is on or before the end of the 60-day re-registration period stated in this Notice; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code.
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Insert May 1, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the current EAD expires.
By the start of work on May 2, 2018, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of the Form I-9.
If you are an existing employee who presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and your employment authorization has now been automatically extended because you timely and properly filed a new application for employment authorization during the 60-day re-registration period, you may present your expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action. The Form I-797C should show that the EAD renewal application was timely filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A-12 or C-19. To avoid confusion, you may also provide your employer a copy of this
1. For Section 1, you may:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date in Section 1;
b. Write the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires (May
c. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A12 or C19;
• The “received date” on Form I-797 is on or before the end of the 60-day re-registration period stated in this Notice; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code.
b. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
c. Write the date that is 180 days from the date the employee's current EAD expires (May 1, 2018) above the previous date (November 2, 2017); and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.
This is not considered a reverification. Employers do not need to complete Section 3 until either the 180-day extension has ended or the employee presents a new document to show continued employment authorization, whichever is sooner.
By May 2, 2018, when the employee's automatically extended employment authorization has ended, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
Employers may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee using the Form I-797C receipt information provided on Form I-9. The receipt number entered as the document number on Form I-9 should be entered into the document number field in E-Verify.
E-Verify automated the verification process for employees whose TPS-related EAD was automatically extended. If you have an employee who is a TPS beneficiary who provided a TPS-related EAD when he or she first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. This indicates that you should update Form I-9 in accordance with the instructions above. By the employee's start of work on May 2, 2018, employment authorization must be reverified in Section 3. Employers should not use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This Notice does not supersede or in any way limit applicable employment verification rules and policy guidance, including those rules setting forth reverification requirements. For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employers may call USCIS at 888-464-4218 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt as described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) differs from Federal or state government records.
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee based on the employee's decision to contest a TNC or because the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify-related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER Web site at
While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, state and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each state may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, state, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples of such documents are:
(1) Your current EAD;
(2) A copy of your receipt notice (Form I-797C) for your application to renew your current EAD providing an automatic extension of your currently expired or expiring EAD;
(3) A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797) for this re-registration; and
(4) A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797), if you received one from USCIS.
Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to confirm the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but, occasionally, verification can be delayed. You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at the following link:
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:
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email:
Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
Approximately 1,900 HUD-participating agencies provide housing counseling services nation-wide currently. Of these, approximately 920 have been directly approved by HUD. HUD maintains a list of these agencies so that individuals in need of assistance can easily access the nearest HUD-approved housing counseling agency via HUD's Web site, an automated 1-800 Hotline, or a smart phone application. HUD Form 9900, Application for Approval as a Housing Counseling Agency, is necessary to make sure that people who contact a HUD approved agency can have confidence they will receive quality service and these agencies meet HUD requirements for approval.
To participate in HUD's Housing Counseling Program, a housing counseling agency must first be approved by HUD. Approval entails meeting various requirements relating to experience and capacity, including nonprofit status, a minimum of one year of housing counseling experience in the target community, and sufficient resources to implement a housing counseling plan. Eligible organizations include local housing counseling agencies, private or public organizations (including grassroots, faith-based and other community-based organizations) such as nonprofit, state, or public housing authorities that meet the Program criteria. HUD uses form HUD-9900 to evaluate whether applying organizations meet minimum requirements to participate in the Housing Counseling Program. The instruction on how to become a HUD approved Housing Counseling Agency is found at
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of
(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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) John Day—Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
The RAC will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 12, 2017, from 12:00 p.m. until 5 p.m., and on Friday, October 13, 2017, from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. A public comment period will be held during Friday's meeting from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
The meeting will take place at the Springhill Suites, 551 Industrial Way, Bend, OR 97702. If you cannot attend the meeting in person, you may call in on the telephone conference line number at 1-877-989-1244, Participant Code: 3005406#. The agenda will be posted online by September 11, 2017, at
Lisa Clark, Public Affairs Officer, BLM Prineville District Office, 3050 NE 3rd St., Prineville, Oregon 97754; 541-416-6700;
The 15-member John Day—Snake RAC was chartered to provide advice to BLM and U.S. Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in central and eastern Oregon. All advisory council meetings are open to the public. If you have information that you wish to distribute to the RAC, please do so prior to the start of each meeting.
Agenda items for the meeting include: A presentation on the Ochoco National Forest sustainable recreation strategy and subsequent fee proposal; a subcommittee report on the Lower Deschutes River Fee Proposal and potential decision; an update on Central and Eastern Oregon Greater sage-grouse populations, including an overview of the causal factor analysis process and any plans for reducing impacts to local Sage-Grouse populations; a presentation by the South Fork John Day Watershed Council; a fee proposal by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest; an update on the Blue Mountain Forest Resiliency project; and an update on Torrefied Biomass as a fuel commodity by Matt Krumenauer, Principle, Oregon Torrefaction, LLC. In addition, RAC members will set the 2018 meeting schedule and will identify future-topic presentations for the RAC meetings. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the RAC may also be addressed. A public comment period will be available on October 13 from 10:00-10:30 a.m. During this time, each speaker may address the RAC for a maximum of 5 minutes. Meeting times and the duration of the public comment period may be extended or altered when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate business and all who seek to be heard regarding matters before the RAC.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Steens Mountain Advisory Council's (SMAC) Public Land Access subcommittee will meet as indicated below.
The SMAC Public Land Access subcommittee will have a field trip on Thursday, September 21, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, and a public meeting on Friday, September 22, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The meeting may end early if all business items are accomplished ahead of schedule, or may be extended if discussions warrant more time.
The field trip will begin at 9 a.m. at the Roaring Springs Ranch, 31437 Highway 205, Frenchglen, Oregon, 97736. The meeting will be held at the same location. Written comments may be sent to the BLM Burns District office, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738.
Tara Thissell, Public Affairs Specialist, 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738; telephone 541-573-4519; email
The SMAC was initiated August 14, 2001, pursuant to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-399). The SMAC provides representative counsel and advice to the BLM regarding new and unique approaches to management of the land within the bounds of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), recommends cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs, and advises the BLM on maintenance and improvement of the ecological and economic integrity of the area.
On September 21, 2017, the SMAC Public Land Access subcommittee will have an all day field tour of the private inholdings in the Steens Mountain Wilderness. Both the field trip and the meeting on September 22 are open to the public. However, the public is required to provide its own transportation for the field trip. Agenda items for the meeting include: A discussion on the Ruby Springs Allotment Management Plan; an update from the Designated Federal Official; discussion of the Nature's Advocate Environmental Assessment (inholder access); discussion on public access at Pike Creek Canyon; follow-up on issues that may need legislative attention; and regular business items such as approving the previous meeting's minutes, member round-table, and planning the next meeting's agenda. Any other matters that may reasonably come before the SMAC may also be included.
A public comment period will be available on September 22 from 11:00 to 11:30 a.m. Unless otherwise approved by the SMAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes, and each speaker may address the SMAC for a maximum of 5 minutes.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment-including your personal identifying information-may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC) and its Planning and Recreation Subcommittees will meet as indicated below.
The RAC and its Planning and Recreation Subcommittees will meet on September 27, 2017. The Planning Subcommittee will meet from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m., the Recreation Subcommittee will meet from 12 to 1:30 p.m., and the RAC will meet from 1:45 to 4:30 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Rainbow Library, 3150 N Buffalo Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89128.
Tim Smith, District Manager, at 702-515-5000, Southern Nevada District Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130, email:
The 15-member RAC was chartered to serve in an advisory capacity concerning the planning and management of the public land resources located within Nevada. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area and statewide. All advisory council meetings are open to the public.
A public comment period will be available from 3:45 to 4:15 p.m. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period of the meeting should register in person with the BLM, at the meeting location, before the meeting's public comment period. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited.
Topics for discussion at each meeting will include, but are not limited to:
• Planning Subcommittee—Update and discussion regarding utility/transmission corridor planning, update on planning efforts such as Las Vegas In-Valley Area Multi-Action Analysis Environmental Assessment, and discuss Resource Management Plans and make any necessary recommendations.
• Recreation Subcommittee—Review of BLM recreation fee proposals and step-by-step approval process, and presentation and update on Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area recreation fee business plan with discussion and discussion of any motions the Recreation Subcommittee wants to advance to the RAC.
• RAC—District Manager reports, committee reports, schedule of Fiscal Year 2018 RAC and Subcommittee meetings, and discuss and vote on Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area recreation fee business plan.
The RAC may raise other topics at the meeting. Final agendas are posted on-line at the BLM Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC Web site at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal information from public review, we cannot guarantee that will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands were officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona, on the dates indicated. Surveys announced in this notice are necessary for the management of lands administered by the agencies indicated.
These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427. Protests of the survey should be sent to the Arizona State Director at this address.
Gerald Davis, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona; (602) 417-9558;
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and north boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 1, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 1, Township 3 North, Range 4 East, accepted June 29, 2017, and officially filed July 5, 2017, for Group 1159, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Reclamation.
The plat representing the dependent survey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 15 and 16, Township 11 North, Range 4 East, accepted June 29, 2017, and officially filed July 5, 2017, for Group 1167, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat, in two sheets, representing the recovery and rehabilitation of certain corners in section 10, Township 21 North, Range 6 East, accepted June 29, 2017, and officially filed July 5, 2017, for Group 1123, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 12, Township 28 North, Range 8 East, accepted January 24, 2017, and officially filed January 25, 2017, for Group 1157, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the dependent resurvey of Homestead Entry No. 391, Township 14 North, Range 10 East, accepted January 6, 2017, and officially filed January 9, 2017, for Group 1123, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of Mineral Survey No. 4442, Township 11 North, Range 15 East, accepted June 29, 2017, and officially filed July 5, 2017, for Group 1155, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Fourth Standard Parallel North (south boundary), and a portion of the east boundary, Township 17 North, Range 24 East, accepted February 21, 2017, and officially filed February 23, 2017, for Group 1163, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the National Park Service.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 28, 29 and 33, Township 15 North, Range 5 West, accepted February 21, 2017, and officially filed February 23, 2017, for Group 1148, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Fifth Standard Parallel North (north boundary), a portion of the west boundary, and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 20 North, Range 7 West, accepted June 29, 2017, and officially filed July 5, 2017, for Group 1156, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 4, Township 24 North, Range 16 West, accepted January 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1151, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Sixth Standard Parallel North (south boundary), and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 25 North, Range 16 West, accepted January 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1151, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 23, Township 7 North, Range 17 West, accepted June 29, 2017, and officially filed July 5, 2017, for Group 1161, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 25 North, Range 17 West, accepted June 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1151, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 25 North, Range 17 West, accepted January 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1151, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 26 North, Range 17 West, accepted January 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1151, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 27 North, Range 17 West, accepted January 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1151, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Gila and Salt River Meridian (east boundary), a portion of the north boundary, and a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, accepted January 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1149, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 7, Township 1 South, Range 23 West, accepted June 29, 2017, and officially filed July 5, 2017, for Group 1152, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary of the Gila River Indian Reservation, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 16 and 17, Township 5 South, Range 5 East, accepted January 27, 2017, and officially filed January 30, 2017, for Group 1149, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The plat showing the metes-and-bounds survey of the Calabazas National Historical Park, in a portion of Lot A, Block 211, of the Rio Rico Estates, Unit 10 subdivision, being a portion of Baca Float No. 3, Township 23 South, Ranges 13 and 14 East, accepted March 21, 2017, and officially filed March 23, 2017, for Group 1162, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the National Park Service.
The plat showing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 29, Township 6 South, Range 22 East, accepted February 21, 2017, and officially filed February 23, 2017, for Group 1166, Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written notice of protest
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed. Before including your address, or other personal information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM), San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) will meet as indicated below:
The MAC will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 19, 2017. The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. A public comment period will be available from 1:45 until 2:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Friday Harbor Grange, 152 First Street, Friday Harbor, WA 98250.
Marcia deChadenèdes, San Juan Islands National Monument Manager, P.O. Box 3, Lopez Island, WA 98261; 360-468-3051;
The 12-member MAC was appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to provide information and advice regarding the development of the San Juan Islands National Monument's Resource Management Plan (RMP). Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area. All advisory committee meetings are open to the public. Agenda items include the potential impacts of the RMP's alternatives to recreation, vegetation communities, cultural resources and wildlife. Potential impacts to socioeconomics, tribal interests, and lands with wilderness characteristics will also be discussed.
At 1:45 p.m. members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the MAC during a public comment period. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the BLM by 1 p.m. on the meeting day, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited. The public may send written comments to the MAC at San Juan Islands National Monument, Attn. MAC, P.O. Box 3, Lopez Island, WA 98261. The BLM appreciates all comments. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment-including your personal identifying information-may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern Washington Resource Advisory Council (EWRAC) will meet as indicated below.
The EWRAC will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 26, 2017, in Spokane Valley, Washington. The meeting will run from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, with a 60 minute public comment period at 12:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the BLM Spokane District Office, 1103 North Fancher, Spokane Valley, WA 99212.
Jeff Clark, Spokane District Public Affairs Officer, 1103 North Fancher, Spokane Valley, WA 99212, 509-536-1297,
The 15-member EWRAC was chartered to provide information and advice regarding the use and development of the lands administered by the Spokane District in central and eastern Washington. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area and statewide. All advisory council meetings are open to the public. At noon members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the EWRAC during a one hour public comment period. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the BLM by 11 a.m. on the meeting day, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 1784.4-2.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 26) terminating the investigation on the basis of settlement.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on January 24, 2017, based on a complaint filed by ZiiLabs Inc. of Hamilton, Bermuda (“ZiiLabs”). 82 FR 8207 (Jan. 24, 2017). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of certain claims of four United States Patents.
The investigation has previously been terminated as to Lenovo Group Ltd. and MediaTek USA Inc. Order No. 7 (Feb. 28, 2017),
On August 9, 2017, ZiiLabs moved to terminate the investigation based upon settlement.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On September 15, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed consent decree and proposed settlement agreement would resolve claims of the United States brought against the Defendants in the district court case under Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607 (“CERCLA”), seeking reimbursement of response costs incurred or to be incurred for response actions taken at or in connection with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Michelin Powerhouse Site and the Michelin Building 3 Vat Site located within Tax Map Block 58, Lot 1.01, in the Borough of Milltown, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Under
The proposed settlement agreement in the bankruptcy case would resolve the bankruptcy claims of the United States against two of the Defendants in the district court case, Alsol Corporation and S B Building Associates, LP., which are claims based on the CERCLA claims brought against these Defendants in the district court case. The proposed settlement agreement would also resolve the liability of Defendants SB Building GP, LLC, United States Land Resources, L.P., United States Realty Resources, Inc., and Lawrence S. Berger for payment of the judgment entered in
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree and proposed settlement agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree and proposed settlement agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $7.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion) for an amendment to License No. SNM-2507 in the form of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS). Under this license, Dominion is authorized to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials at the North Anna Power Station (NAPS) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Dominion requested approval of the TS changes to allow storage of spent fuel in a modified TN-32B bolted lid cask as part of the High Burn-up Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute. Data gathered from the cask will be used to confirm the effects of long-term dry storage on high burn-up assemblies.
September 21, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0237 when contacting the NRC about the availability of
•
•
•
Chris Allen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6877; email:
By letter dated August 24, 2015, as supplemented October 8, November 18, November 19, December 1, and December 28, 2015; January 14, March 22, March 23, April 21, June 21, July 26, September 23, November 22, 2016, and April 10, 2017, Dominion submitted to the NRC, in accordance with part 72 of title 10 of the
The NRC issued a letter dated September 25, 2015, notifying Dominion that the application was acceptable for review. In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(a), a notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing was published in the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report that documents its review and evaluation of the amendment request. Also in connection with this action, the NRC prepared an Environmental Assessment containing a Finding of No Significant Impact. The Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the NAPS ISFSI was published in the
Upon completing its review, the staff determined that the amendment request complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), as well as the NRC's applicable regulations. As required by the Act and such regulations, the staff made the appropriate findings which are contained in the safety evaluation report and the Environmental Assessment. Based on these findings, the NRC approved Dominion's amendment request and accordingly issued Amendment No. 5 to License No. SNM-2507. Amendment No. 5 was effective as of its date of issuance.
The following table includes the ADAMS accession numbers for the documents referenced in this notice. For additional information on accessing ADAMS, see the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory issue summary; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing draft Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2017-XX, “Status of Regulatory Actions Taken to Address Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems.” The NRC has decided to withdraw this RIS after reviewing the comments received during the public comment period.
The date of the withdrawal is September 21, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0040 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Diana Woodyatt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-000; telephone: 301-415-1245, email:
The NRC is withdrawing draft RIS 2017-XX “Status of Regulatory Actions Taken to Address Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16244A787). The NRC published a notice requesting public comment on this RIS in the
As a result of its review of comments received on the RIS, the NRC has determined that final issuance of this RIS is not necessary. The agency received comments on the RIS from the Nuclear Energy Institute (ADAMS Accession No. ML17079A134), Southern Nuclear (ADAMS No. ML17081A016), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (ADAMS No. ML17081A017). Among other things, these comments pointed out that much of the guidance discussed in the RIS was issued after GL 2008-01, and suggested that discussing that guidance might confuse licensees about whether they need to perform additional actions in response to GL 2008-01. The NRC previously issued plant-specific closure letters following its review of licensee information submitted in response to GL 2008-01 and determined that no additional action was required.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received within sixty (60) calendar days of publication of this Notice.
Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. See
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202) 336-8558.
All mailed comments and requests for copies of the subject form should include form number OPIC-252 on both the envelope and in the subject line of the letter. Electronic comments and requests for copies of the subject form may be sent to
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season Express Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System and the Open Season Web site, Open Season Online.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 23, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0201) was previously published in the
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,
Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Open Season Express Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System, and the Open Season Web site, Open Season Online, are used by retirees and survivors. They collect information for changing FEHB enrollments, collecting dependent and other insurance information for self and family enrollments, requesting plan brochures, requesting a change of address, requesting cancellation or suspension of FEHB benefits, asking to make payment to the Office of Personnel Management when the FEHB payment is greater than the monthly annuity amount, or for requesting FEHB plan accreditation and Customer Satisfaction Survey information.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On July 20, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the
Rule 1027 generally imposes restrictions and various requirements on
Rules 1027(a)(i) and (ii) apply to stock or exchange-traded fund share options and foreign currency options, respectively. These provisions prohibit the exercise of any discretionary power with respect to trading in options contracts in a customer's account unless such customer has given prior written authorization with respect to such trading and the account has been accepted in writing by a designated Registered Options Principal or, in the case of foreign currency options, a Foreign Currency Options Principal.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1027(a)(i) to include index options, as their current exclusion from the rule is without a rational basis and was likely an oversight. The Exchange also proposes to expand the rule to cover member organizations, to be more consistent with the comparable CBOE rule which applies to CBOE Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) organizations.
The Exchange proposes to delete from Rule 1027(a)(iii) a reference to “Compliance Registered Option Principal,” a term which the Exchange no longer uses, and proposes to substitute the term “Registered Options Principal.” It also proposes to amend that section by adding language requiring the Registered Options Principal providing appropriate supervisory review to be specifically delegated such responsibilities under Rule 1025 and not be the Registered Options Principal exercising the discretionary review. These changes would conform Rule 1027(a)(iii) to the duplicative language deleted from Rule 1027(a)(i) as described above. The Exchange also proposes to delete the last sentence of Rule 1027(a)(iii), which provides that the provisions of paragraph (a) shall not apply to discretion as to the price at which or the time when an order given by a customer for the purchase or sale of a definite number of option contracts in a specified security or foreign currency shall be executed. This sentence is largely duplicative of existing language in Rule 1027(e), Discretion as to Time or Price Excepted. Rule 1027(e), however, is proposed to be amended by the addition of a reference to “foreign currency” which was present in the deleted sentence of Rule 1027(a)(iii).
The Exchange is proposing no changes to Rule 1027(a)(iv), which extends the provisions of Rule 1027 to index warrants, as no changes are required.
Currently, Rule 1027(c) prohibits members as well as partners, officers and employees of a member organization having discretionary power over a customer's account from, in the exercise of such discretion, executing or causing to be executed therein any purchases or sales of option contracts which are excessive in size or frequency in view of the financial resources in such account. The prohibition is proposed to be reworded, to conform Phlx Rule 1027(c) more closely to CBOE Rule 9.10, Discretionary Accounts, section (c). Additionally, the rule would be expanded to cover member organizations as well as members and partners and employees of member organizations.
Rule 1027(d) currently requires a record to be made of every transaction in option contracts in respect to which a member or a partner, officer or employee of a member organization has exercised discretionary authority, clearly reflecting such fact and indicating the name of the customer, the designation and number of the option contracts, the premium and the date and time when such transaction was effected. The Exchange proposes to reword the rule so that it applies to option transactions for an account in respect to which a member or member organization or a partner, officer or employee of a member organization is vested with any discretionary authority, and to detail the required content of the record. The revision proposed for Rule 1027(d) would conform the rule more closely to CBOE Rule 9.10, Discretionary Accounts, section (b), which extends to CBOE TPH organizations, except that the Exchange proposes to retain the existing requirement that the transaction record clearly reflect that the member (or, as the rule is proposed to be amended, member organization) or a partner,
As discussed above the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1027(e), which generally excludes price and time discretion from the requirements of Rule 1027, to cover foreign currency options. The Exchange also proposes to correct an internal cross reference to “this paragraph (d)” which should read “this paragraph (e).”
After careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.
The proposal is designed to “remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, by eliminating redundant rule text, clarifying certain rule text, and conforming parts of the rule more closely to CBOE Rule 9.10, Discretionary Accounts.”
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 14, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC,” each a “Clearing Agency,” and collectively the “Clearing Agencies”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2017-013, SR-NSCC-2017-012, and SR-FICC-2017-016, respectively, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule changes are proposals by the Clearing Agencies to adopt the Clearing Agency Risk Management Framework (“Framework”) of the Clearing Agencies, as described below.
The Framework would describe how each Clearing Agency (i) comprehensively manages legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by it (“Key Clearing Agency Risks”); (ii) manages risks posed by its participants;
The Framework would state that the Boards of Directors of the Clearing Agencies (each a “Board” and together, the “Boards”) have delegated to DTCC management, on behalf of the Clearing Agencies, the responsibility for identifying, assessing, measuring, monitoring, mitigating, and reporting Key Clearing Agency Risks through a process of developing individual risk tolerance statements for identified risks.
The Framework would provide that the Clearing Agencies employ a “Three Lines of Defense” approach for comprehensively managing Key Clearing Agency Risks.
For the first line of defense, the Framework would state that each Clearing Agency Business/Support Area would, for example, identify Key Clearing Agency Risks applicable to its function, determine the best way to mitigate such risks, self-test internal controls, and create and implement actions plans for risk mitigation.
In connection with a description of the second and the third lines of defense, the Framework would state that personnel within the DTCC Risk Department and the DTCC Internal Audit are provided with sufficient authority, resources, independence from management, and access to the Boards.
The Framework would provide that the Clearing Agencies maintain a policy to govern the requirements for establishing, managing, and assessing the performance of internal committees and councils.
The Framework would describe policies maintained by the Clearing Agencies that (i) govern the steps taken to meet their regulatory requirements related to proposed rule change and advance notice filings pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,
The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies maintain the Clearing Agencies' Rules, which support the Clearing Agencies' ability to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of their activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies provide their respective participants with information and incentives to enable them to monitor, manage, and contain the risks they pose (including the risks by their customers) to the respective Clearing Agencies.
The Framework would also describe some of the incentives used by the Clearing Agencies to enable their participants to monitor, manage, and contain risks they pose to the Clearing Agencies, including, for example, (i) daily margin requirements, pursuant to the Clearing Agencies' Rules, which are calculated in close correlation to the risk each participant poses to the relevant Clearing Agency; and (ii) other tools within the Clearing Agencies' Rules that enable the Clearing Agencies to enforce their respective Rules against their participants.
The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies regularly review the material risks they bear from and pose to other entities as a result of material interdependencies and external links.
The Framework would provide that risks arising from links to vendors are identified, assessed, controlled, and monitored through a comprehensive review and vetting process.
The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies meet the requirements of their participants and the markets they serve.
The Framework would also describe the Clearing Agencies' role in industry-wide strategic initiatives through participation on industry working groups and the development and publication of concept papers.
The Framework would provide that the Clearing Agencies may maintain policies and procedures to govern the development of plans for recovery and orderly wind-down.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies or for which they are responsible.
As described above, the Framework would provide some of the ways the Clearing Agencies comprehensively manage Key Clearing Agency Risks, which include legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the Clearing Agencies. For example, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies use the “Three Lines of Defense” approach to assessing, measuring, monitoring, mitigating, and reporting those risks, and would identify the roles and responsibilities of each line of defense within that approach. The Framework would also provide other risk management activities, including the establishment and maintenance of certain management committees that would perform oversight of the Clearing Agencies' businesses and related risk management. Furthermore, the Framework would describe information and incentives offered by the Clearing Agencies to their participants to manage and contain the risks. The Framework would also describe some of the ways to manage risks posed by material interdependency relationships and external links, and address the market needs efficiently and effectively.
By providing transparency to their risk management practices, the Framework is designed to help the Clearing Agencies be in a better position to prevent and manage the risks that arise in or are borne by the Clearing Agencies. By better managing the risks that arise in or are borne by the Clearing Agencies, the Framework is designed to help reduce the possibility that a Clearing Agency fails. By better positioning the Clearing Agencies to continue their critical operations and services, and mitigating the risk of financial loss contagion caused by a Clearing Agency failure, the Framework is designed to help assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the Clearing Agencies, or for which they are responsible. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act requires that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
As described above, the Framework would describe the policies maintained by the Clearing Agencies that govern the Filing Requirements and the Document Standards. In addition, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies maintain the Clearing Agencies' Rules. The Clearing Agencies' Rules are the key legal basis for each of the Clearing Agencies' respective activities described in the Clearing Agencies' Rules. For example, as part of the membership onboarding process, all participants must execute membership agreements, which binds them to the relevant Clearing Agency's Rules and subjects them to an enforceable contract governing the rights and obligations of the Clearing Agencies and those participants. The Framework would also describe how the Clearing Agencies' Rules are published on the DTCC Web site, and how the Clearing Agencies adhere to the Filing Requirements. The Framework would also describe how the Clearing Agencies review and assess risk related to their contractual arrangements with vendors, service providers, and other external parties with which the Clearing Agencies may establish links. The Framework would also describe the process by which the Clearing Agencies review new initiatives prior to implementation, which include a review of the legal risks that may be posed by those initiatives.
By organizing and describing in a central location the policies and procedures that the Clearing Agencies use to manage Key Clearing Agency Risks, as well as the Clearing Agencies' policies, procedures, Rules, frameworks, and other documents, the Framework is designed to help the Clearing Agencies manage, in a more clear and transparent way, the policies and procedures that define the rights and obligations of the Clearing Agencies, their participants, and other external parties. In doing so, the Framework also helps provide for a well-founded and enforceable legal basis for the activities of the Clearing Agencies. Therefore, the Commission believes that the Framework is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which includes risk management policies, procedures and systems designed to identify, measure, monitor and manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and approved by the board of directors annually.
As described above, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies maintain comprehensive policies, procedures, and other documents, including the Framework and certain other risk management frameworks, which are designed to help identify, measure, monitor, and manage Key Clearing Agency Risks. The Framework would state that the documents that address Key Clearing
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iii) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which provides risk management and internal audit personnel with sufficient authority, resources, independence from management, and access to the board of directors.
As described above, in connection with a description of the second and the third lines of defense, the Framework would state that personnel within the DTCC Risk Department and the DTCC Internal Audit are provided with sufficient authority, resources, independence from management, and access to the Boards. In particular, the Framework would describe how both the DTCC Risk Department and the DTCC Internal Audit are functionally independent from all other Clearing Agency Business/Support Areas. The Framework would also indicate how the senior management within both of those groups report directly to appropriate committees of the Boards. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the Framework is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iii).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iv) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which provides risk management and internal audit personnel with a direct reporting line to, and oversight by, a risk management committee and an independent audit committee of the board of directors, respectively.
As described above, the Framework would describe, as the third line of defense, how senior management within the DTCC Risk Department and the DTCC Internal Audit have a direct reporting line to, and oversight by, the Risk Committee of the Boards and the Audit Committee of the Boards, respectively, which is supported by the charters of these committees. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the Framework is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iv).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(20) under the Act requires that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor and manage risks related to any link the covered clearing agency establishes with one or more other clearing agencies, financial market utilities, or trading markets.
As described above, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies review both proposed and existing links with other entities, including those links that may result in material interdependencies. For example, the Framework would describe some of the ways the Clearing Agencies manage risks related to their links with, as applicable, participants, settling banks, investment counterparties, liquidity providers, vendors, and service providers, and would also describe how the Clearing Agencies identify and address risks that have the potential of creating systemic impact. With respect to links with vendors, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies apply a comprehensive vendor review and vetting process.
By providing written policies and procedures to identify, monitor, and manage risks related to links that the Clearing Agencies' establish, the Commission believes that the Framework is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(20).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) under the Act requires that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves, and have the covered clearing agency's management regularly review the efficiency and effectiveness of its (i) clearing and settlement arrangements; (ii) operating structure, including risk management policies, procedures, and systems; (iii) scope of products cleared or settled; and (iv) use of technology and communication procedures.
As described above, the Framework would describe some of the ways in which the Clearing Agencies review the efficiency and effectiveness of their businesses and operations. For example, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies employ a structured approach to the pre-implementation reviews of new initiatives (including initiatives related to their clearing and settlement arrangements, scope of products cleared or settled, and use of technology and communication procedures). The Framework would also describe the Clearing Agencies' Core Balanced Business Scorecard, which is used to review the effectiveness of the Clearing Agencies' operations, information technology services levels, financial performance, and other aspects of their business, including their respective participants' experiences. The Framework would also describe some of the steps the Clearing Agencies take in order to be efficient and effective in reviewing and meeting the requirements of their participants and the markets they serve, including the maintenance of a policy to address escalation, tracking, and resolution of certain customer complaints.
By establishing a framework that would (i) help support bring initiatives to market in a more timely and efficient manner through the pre-implementation reviews; (ii) help provide the Clearing Agencies insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of their businesses and operations through the Core Balanced Business Scorecard; and (iii) help manage the Clearing Agencies' participants' complaints through a specific policy, the Commission believes that the Framework is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 13, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Generally, Section 102 of the Manual sets forth the minimum numerical standards for domestic companies, or foreign private issuers that choose to follow the domestic standards, to list equity securities on the Exchange. Section 102.01B of the Manual requires a listed company to demonstrate at the time of listing an aggregate market value of publicly-held shares of either $40 million or $100 million, depending on the type of listing.
The Exchange has proposed three changes to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. First, the Exchange has proposed to amend such Footnote to explicitly permit the Exchange, on a case by case basis, to exercise its discretion to list companies whose stock is not previously registered under the Exchange Act upon effectiveness of only an Exchange Act registration statement, without any concurrent IPO or Securities Act registration, provided the company meets all other listing requirements. The Exchange noted that a company is able to become an Exchange Act registrant without a concurrent public offering by filing a Form 10 (or, in the case of a foreign private issuer, a Form 20-F) with the Commission, and expressed its belief that it is appropriate to list such companies immediately upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent Securities Act registration statement provided the company meets all other listing requirements.
Second, the Exchange has proposed to amend Footnote (E) to provide that, in the absence of any recent trading in a Private Placement Market, the Exchange will determine that a company has met its market value of publicly-held shares requirement if the company provides a recent Valuation evidencing a market value of publicly-held shares of at least $250 million. In proposing this change, the Exchange expressed the view that the current requirement of Footnote (E) to rely on recent Private Placement Market trading in addition to a Valuation may cause difficulties for certain companies that are otherwise clearly qualified for listing.
Lastly, the Exchange proposed to further amend Footnote (E) by establishing certain criteria that would preclude a valuation agent from being considered “independent” for purposes of Footnote (E), which the Exchange believes will provide a significant additional guarantee of the independence of any entity providing such a Valuation. Specifically, the Exchange proposed that a valuation agent will not be deemed to be independent if:
• At the time it provides such valuation, the valuation agent or any affiliated person or persons beneficially own in the aggregate as of the date of the valuation, more than 5% of the class of securities to be listed, including any right to receive any such securities exercisable within 60 days.
• The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has provided any investment banking services to the listing applicant within the 12 months preceding the date of the valuation.
• The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has been engaged to provide investment banking services to the listing applicant in connection with the proposed listing or any related financings or other related transactions.
The Exchange also proposed to amend Exchange Rules 15, 104 and 123D, governing the opening of trading, to specify procedures for the opening trade on the day of initial listing of a company that lists under the proposed amendments to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual, and did not have any recent trading in a Private Placement Market.
Rule 15(b) provides that a designated market maker (“DMM”) will publish a pre-opening indication before a security opens if the opening transaction on the Exchange is anticipated to be at a price that represents a change of more than the “Applicable Price Range,” as specified in Rule 15(d), from a specified “Reference Price,” as specified in Rule 15(c).
The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 15(c)(1) to add new sub-paragraph (D) to specify the Reference Price for a security that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. The Exchange proposed that if such security has had recent sustained trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing the Reference Price in such scenario would be the most recent transaction price in that market or, if not, the Reference Price used would be a price determined by the Exchange in consultation with a financial advisor to the issuer of such security.
Rule 104(a)(2) provides that the DMM has a responsibility for facilitating openings and reopenings for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered as required under Exchange rules, which includes supplying liquidity as needed. The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 104(a)(2) to require the DMM to consult with the issuer's financial advisor when
The Exchange stated that it believes that such a financial advisor would have an understanding of the status of ownership of outstanding shares in the company and would have been working with the issuer to identify a market for the securities upon listing.
In its proposal, the Exchange stated that the proposed amendments to both Rule 15 and Rule 104 are designed to provide DMMs with information to assist them in meeting their obligations to open a new listing under the proposed amended text of Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual.
The Exchange further proposed to amend its rules to provide authority to declare a regulatory halt for a non-IPO new listing. As proposed, Rule 123D(d) would provide that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange that has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market pursuant to FINRA Form 211 (“OTC market”) immediately prior to the initial pricing.
The Commission received one comment letter on the proposal urging the Commission to approve the proposal promptly and without further delay.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis and input concerning the proposed rule change's consistency with the Exchange Act.
The Commission notes that NYSE has proposed to adopt listing standards that would permit broadly, for the first time, the listing on the Exchange of a company immediately upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement for the purpose of creating a liquid trading market without any concurrent Securities Act registration. NYSE states that its proposal to list such companies is designed to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, because such companies will be required to meet all of the same quantitative requirements that are met by other listing applicants.
The Commission notes, however, that a direct listing of this sort based only on an Exchange Act registration without prior trading and Securities Act registration may raise a number of unique considerations, including with respect to the role of various distribution participants, the extent and nature of pricing information available to market participants prior to the commencement of trading, and the availability of information indicative of the number of shares that are likely to be made available for sale at the commencement of trading.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5), or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by October 12, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by October 26, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal which are set forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment, including, where relevant, any specific data, statistics, or studies, on the following:
1. Would a direct listing based only on an Exchange Act registration without prior trading and Securities Act registration present unique considerations, including with respect to the role of various distribution participants, the extent and nature of pricing information available to market participants prior to the commencement of trading, and the availability of information indicative of the number of shares that are likely to be made available for sale at the commencement of trading? Would these considerations raise any concerns, including with respect to promoting just and equitable principles of trade, 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? If so, please identify those risks and explain their significance.
2. To what extent would a direct listing impact the ability of the DMM to facilitate the opening (or otherwise fulfill its obligations as a DMM) on the first day of trading of a security listed only with an Exchange Act registration? To the extent there would be an impact, please identify it and explain its significance. To what extent would any such impact be mitigated by the proposed requirement that the DMM consult with a financial adviser to the issuer in order to effect a fair and orderly opening of the security?
• 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) actively-managed series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Acquiring Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds.
Active Weighting Funds ETF Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Active Weighting Advisors LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The application was filed on August 31, 2016, and amended on January 13, 2017, May 25, 2017, and September 15, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 10, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10281.
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6879, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as actively-managed exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will consist of a portfolio of securities and other assets and investment positions (“Portfolio Positions”). Each Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the Portfolio Positions that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the day.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.
6. With respect to Funds that hold non-U.S. Portfolio Positions and that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Acquiring Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Acquiring Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons, or second tier affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those
9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On March 1, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-002 (“Proposed Rule Change”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that, after initiating proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The 180th day after publication of the notice for the Proposed Rule Change in the
The Commission also seeks additional comment to help further inform its analysis of the Proposed Rule Change. Specifically, the Commission invites interested persons to provide views, data, and arguments concerning the Proposed Rule Change, including whether the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the Act and the applicable rules or regulations thereunder. Please note that comments previously received on the substance of the Proposed Rule Change will be considered together with comments submitted in response to this notice. Therefore, while commenters are free to
1. The Proposed Rule Change would require each Netting Member to attest that its Individual Total Amount has been incorporated into its liquidity plans (“Attestation Requirement”).
2. The Proposed Rule Change would require FICC to provide each Netting Member with a daily “liquidity funding report” to help the Netting Member monitor and manage the liquidity risk it presents to FICC. The Commission requests comment on the value of such daily reporting to Netting Members and the extent to which and, if so, how Netting Members anticipate adjusting their trading behavior or otherwise managing the liquidity risk they present to FICC, whether in reliance on the daily liquidity funding report or otherwise. Please explain and, to the extent possible, provide specific data, analyses, or studies on potential changes to trading behavior or other adjustments to manage liquidity obligations to FICC for support.
a. If such adjustments would include changes in market participation, participation in certain market segments, or the quantity or price of services offered to clients, please provide information of such changes, in addition to any supporting data, analyses, or studies.
b. If such adjustments would include deciding to clear repo transactions bilaterally, instead of centrally through FICC, please provide the rationale and factors considered in making that decision, in addition to any supporting data, analyses, or studies.
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to offer monthly subscriptions for Open and Close Trade Profile Information.
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 Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to offer monthly
The Open/Close Trade Profile provides over 80 fields of trading and volume data for GEMX-listed options that can be used to create and test trading models and analytical strategies. Trade Profile data includes: “Origin Code” (the type of trader participating in the transaction);
The GEMX Open/Close Trade Profile is currently available as an historical database available upon request, and the Exchange proposes to offer intraday and end-of-day subscriptions to Trade Profile information as well. Such subscriptions will be available to both members and non-members, similar to the ISE Open/Close Trade Profile.
The proposed rule change will increase transparency in the market by increasing the amount of information available to market participants to assist them in making investment decisions related to GEMX-listed options.
The proposed fees are optional in that they apply only to firms that elect to purchase these products. The changes do not impact the cost of any other GEMX product.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . .”
The Exchange believes that adding the proposed subscriptions to the Exchange's Open/Close Trade Profile is reasonable and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The proposed changes will increase transparency by providing information about options activity throughout and at the end of the trading day. The proposed fees, like all proprietary data fees, are constrained by the Exchange's need to compete for order flow, and are subject to competition from other options exchanges. As explained in
The proposed changes are an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because fees will be the same for all of the purchasers of each product and it is equitable to charge more for the intraday product—which provides updates at 10 minute intervals over the course of the trading day—than the end-of-day product, which provides updates once per day.
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 changes will allow the Exchange to offer intraday and end-of-day subscriptions to options trading data. If the price of the proposed subscriptions were to be set above a competitive price, the Exchange may lose revenue as a result.
GEMX market data fees are constrained by competition among exchanges and other entities seeking to attract order flow, and the existence of substitutes that are offered, or may be offered, by other entities. Order flow is the “life blood” of the exchanges. For a variety of reasons, competition from new entrants, especially for order execution, has increased dramatically over the last decade, as demonstrated by the proliferation of new options exchanges such as EDGX Exchange and MIAX Options within the last four years. Each options exchange is permitted to produce proprietary data products.
The markets for order flow and proprietary data are inextricably linked: A trading platform cannot generate market information unless it receives trade orders. As a result, the competition for order flow constrains the prices that platforms can charge for proprietary data products. Firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume based on the total cost of interacting with GEMX and other exchanges. Data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the prospective customer will choose not to buy it. A supracompetitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or proprietary data has the potential to impair revenues from both products.
The price of options data is also constrained by the existence of multiple substitutes offered by a number of entities, and non-proprietary data disseminated by OPRA. OPRA is a securities information processor that disseminates last sale reports and quotations, as well as the number of options contracts traded, open interest and end-of-day summaries. Many customers that obtain information from OPRA do not also purchase proprietary data, but in cases in which customers buy both products, they may shift purchasing decisions based on price changes. OPRA constrains the price of proprietary data products on options exchanges because no customer would pay an excessive price for these products when they already have data from OPRA. Similarly, no customer would pay an excessive price for Exchange data when they have the ability to obtain similar proprietary data from other exchanges. It is not necessary that products be identical in order to be reasonable substitutes for each other.
As such, the price of the GEMX Open/Close Trade Profile product is constrained by other exchanges in the competition for order flow and the availability of similar data from OPRA. Customers choose exchanges based on the total cost of interacting with the exchange; if the GEMX Open/Close Trade Profile were set above market price, the total cost of interacting with GEMX would be above market price, and GEMX would lose market share as a result. In addition, the availability of trading information from OPRA will constrain the price of the GEMX Open/Close Trade Profile because customers would not pay an excessive amount for proprietary data when similar information is available at a lower price; two products need not be identical for each product to act as a constraint on the price of the other. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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.
On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order (“Approval Order”) approving the Options Clearing Corporation's (“OCC”) plan for raising additional capital (“Capital Plan” or “Plan”) to support its function as a systemically important financial market utility.
After filing their petition for review, petitioners filed a motion for a stay in the D.C. Circuit asking the court to stay the Commission's Approval Order pending the court's review. The D.C. Circuit denied petitioners' request for a stay.
In ruling on the petition for review, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Approval Order did not “represent the kind of reasoned decisionmaking required by either the Exchange Act or the Administrative Procedure Act,” and therefore remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings.
The court also considered whether to vacate the Approval Order prior to remand, and decided not to vacate. As the court explained, “the SEC may be able to approve the Plan once again, after conducting a proper analysis on remand.”
Petitioners
In determining whether to grant a stay motion, the Commission typically considers whether (i) there is a strong likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits of its appeal; (ii) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; (iii) any person will suffer substantial harm as a result of a stay; and (iv) a stay is likely to serve
First, with respect to likelihood of success on the merits, we note that the court did not address petitioners' arguments that the Plan was inconsistent with the Exchange Act. Rather, it remanded for the Commission to “properly evaluate the Plan.”
Second, petitioners fail to establish that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay. To demonstrate irreparable harm, petitioners “must show an injury that is `both certain and great' and `actual and not theoretical.' ”
Finally, petitioners have not demonstrated that the balance of harm to others in the absence of a stay and the public interest favors a stay. Petitioners argue that “a stay would injur[e] nobody,”
Moreover, as discussed above, the court squarely considered whether to vacate the Plan or leave it in effect during the Commission's reconsideration, and decided to leave the Plan, including the provisions with respect to dividends, in place. Petitioners' request to stay that part of the Plan therefore, in fact, seeks a change in the status quo that we believe is unsupported at this time. Granting petitioners' request would require piecemeal suspension of portions of the Plan, while leaving others in place, despite at least the possibility of having to reinstitute those provisions at a later date if the Commission, after conducting the required analysis on remand, should determine to approve the Plan. Indeed, the court implicitly rejected this type of partial stay when petitioners proposed it in a pre-decision letter to the court
Accordingly, we decline to impose the partial stay requested.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby:
By the Commission.
On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order (“Approval Order”) approving the plan of the Options Clearing Corporation's (“OCC”) for raising additional capital (the “Plan”) to support its function as a systemically important financial market utility.
The D.C. Circuit concluded that the Approval Order did not “represent the kind of reasoned decisionmaking required by either the Exchange Act or the Administrative Procedure Act,” and therefore remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings.
The court specifically decided not to vacate the Approval Order prior to remand, instead leaving the Plan in place and remanding “to give the SEC an opportunity to properly evaluate the Plan.”
Accordingly, to facilitate the Commission's further review of the Plan,
Furthermore, the Commission is providing other parties and persons thirty days to respond to any additional statements OCC may submit.
Accordingly,
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2015-02. The Commission will post submissions on the Commission's Internet Web site as they are received. Submissions received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. If a party or person wishes to submit information for the Commission to consider that is confidential, Rule 83 of the Commission Rules of Practice provides a procedure by which persons submitting information may request that it be withheld when requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
By the Commission.
Surface Transportation Board.
Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.
The Board approves the fourth quarter 2017 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The fourth quarter 2017 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 0.889. The fourth quarter 2017 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.367. The fourth quarter 2017 RCAF-5 is 0.350.
Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-8339.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site,
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Decided: September 18, 2017.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is conducting a Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Thailand. USTR requests written comments concerning any act, policy, or practice that is relevant to the decision regarding whether and how USTR should identify Thailand based on Thailand's protection for intellectual property rights or market access Thailand provides to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.
You should submit written comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Daniel Lee, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Innovation and Intellectual Property, at
Pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242), USTR must identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. USTR will identify the countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant U.S. products as Priority Foreign Countries. Acts, policies, or practices that are the basis of a country's designation as a Priority Foreign Country normally are the
An Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) is a tool that USTR uses to encourage progress on IPR issues of concern. It provides an opportunity for heightened engagement with a trading partner to address and remedy such issues. Successful resolution of specific IPR issues of concern or lack of action on such issues can lead to a change in a trading partner's identification on a Special 301 list outside of the typical period for the annual Special 301 Report. USTR may conduct OCRs of other trading partners as circumstances warrant or as requested by the trading partner.
In the 2017 Special 301 Report, USTR placed Thailand on the Priority Watch List but noted that the United States was prepared to review that status if Thailand continued to take positive steps and made substantial progress in addressing the concerns described in the Report. Thailand has requested that USTR conduct an OCR in light of its efforts to achieve substantial progress.
USTR invites written comments concerning any act, policy, or practice that is relevant to the decision regarding whether USTR should identify Thailand under Section 182 of the Trade Act. Submissions may report positive or negative developments with respect to Thailand. USTR requests that interested parties provide specific references to laws, regulations, policy statements, executive, presidential or other orders, administrative, court or other determinations that should factor into the review. USTR also requests that submissions include data, loss estimates, and other information regarding the economic impact on the United States, U.S. industry, and the U.S. workforce caused by the denial of adequate and effective intellectual property protection. For comments that include quantitative loss claims, you should include the methodology used to calculate the estimated losses. Comments should be as detailed as possible and should provide all necessary information for assessing the effect of the acts, policies, and practices, particularly with respect to issues regarding Thailand identified in the 2017 Special 301 Report.
All submissions must be in English and sent electronically via
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the comment itself, rather than submitting them as separate files.
For any comment submitted electronically that contains business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. A filer requesting business confidential treatment must certify that the information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Additionally, the submitter should type “Business Confidential 2017 Special 301 OCR Thailand” in the “Comment” field.
Filers of comments containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The non-business confidential version will be placed in the docket at
As noted, USTR strongly urges submitters to file comments through
We will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before October 2, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0875 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mark Forseth, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee meeting.
The meeting will be held on October 11, 2017—9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Bessie Coleman Conference Center (FOB 10A, Second Floor), Washington, DC 20591.
Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman at (609) 485-7149 or email at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) Advisory Committee. The meeting agenda will include time allocated to discuss recommendations provided by the advisory committee to the FAA on research and development investments in the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the interested public but seating is limited. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to attend the meeting, present statements, or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before October 11, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0835 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of funding opportunity.
This notice announces a funding opportunity and requests grant applications for FHWA's Tribal Transportation Program Safety Funds (TTPSF) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and FY 2018 funding, subject to future appropriations. In addition, this notice identifies selection criteria, application requirements, and technical assistance during the grant solicitation period for the TTPSF.
The TTPSF is authorized within the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The FHWA will distribute these funds as described in this notice on a competitive basis in a manner consistent with the selection criteria.
Applications must be submitted electronically no later than 11:59 p.m., e.t. on December 11, 2017 (the “application deadline”). Applicants are encouraged to submit applications in advance of the application deadline; however, applications will not be evaluated, and awards will not be made until after the application deadline. The FHWA plans to conduct outreach regarding the TTPSF in the form of a Webinar on October 17, 2017, 2 p.m., e.t. To join the webinar, follow the directions found at
Applications must be submitted electronically through the Web site:
For further information concerning this notice please contact Russell Garcia, TTPSF Program Manager, via email at
On August 5, 2013, FHWA published the first notice of funding availability for the TTPSF (78 FR 47480). On November 13, 2013, FHWA awarded 183 Tribes a total of $8.6 million for 193 safety projects. On May 14, 2014, FHWA published the second notice of funding availability for the TTPSF (79 FR 27676). On March 10, 2015, FHWA awarded 82 Tribes a total of $8.5 million for 94 projects to improve transportation safety on Tribal lands. On June 26, 2015, FHWA published the third notice of funding availability for the TTPSF (80 FR 36885). On December 9, 2015, FHWA awarded 36 Tribes a total of $449,500 for 36 projects for developing Tribal safety plans. On April 26, 2016, FHWA awarded 35 Tribes a total of $8 million for 54 projects. On July 18, 2016, FHWA published the fourth notice of funding opportunity for the TTPSF (81 FR 46758). On April 10, 2017, FHWA awarded 74 Tribes a total of $9 million for 77 projects. The FHWA is publishing this fifth notice to announce an additional round of funding and request grant applications for FY2017 and FY 2018.
Since the TTPSF was created under Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), FHWA has awarded approximately $34.5 million to 410 Indian Tribes for 454 projects, including development of safety plans, to address safety issues in Indian country over four rounds of competitive grants. The intent of the TTPSF is to prevent and reduce deaths or serious injuries in transportation-related crashes on Tribal lands where statistics are consistently higher than the rest of the Nation as a whole.
The TTPSF emphasizes the development of strategic Transportation Safety Plans using a data-driven process as a means for Tribes to determine how transportation safety needs will be addressed in Tribal communities. Tribal Transportation Safety Plans are a tool used to identify risk factors that lead to serious injury or death and organize various entities to strategically reduce risk; projects submitted must be data-driven, must be consistent with a comprehensive safety strategy, and must correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature or address a highway safety problem.
Because safety data is considered critical for informed transportation safety decisions, the TTPSF also places an emphasis on assessment and improvement of traffic records systems (primarily crash data systems). Guidelines for conducting a traffic records assessment can be found in the Guide for Effective Tribal Crash Reporting, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 788, published by the Transportation Research Board at
Successful TTPSF projects leverage resources, encourage partnership, and have the data to support the applicants' approach in addressing the prevention and reduction of death or serious injuries in transportation-related crashes. A listing of the TTPSF projects/activities that Tribes were previously awarded, answers to frequently asked questions, and additional safety-related information can be found on the TTP Safety Web site at
Under MAP-21, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) included a range of eligible HSIP projects. The list of eligible projects was non-exhaustive, and a State could use HSIP funds on any safety project (infrastructure-related or non-infrastructure) that met the overarching requirements that the project be consistent with the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature or address a highway safety problem. Although the FAST Act continued these overarching requirements under HSIP, it limited eligibility to the projects and activities listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4), most of which are infrastructure-safety related.
As a result of the FAST Act, the TTPSF will only fund highway safety improvement projects eligible under the HSIP as listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4). For purposes of awarding funds under this program in FY 2017, FHWA has identified three eligibility categories: Safety plans; data assessment, improvement, and analysis activities; and infrastructure improvements and other eligible activities as listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4).
The FAST Act authorized TTPSF as a set aside of not more than 2 percent of the funds made available under the TTP for each fiscal year. This notice of funding opportunity solicits proposals under the TTPSF for FY 2017 and FY 2018 funding, subject to future appropriations. Section 202(e) of title 23, United States Code, provides that the Secretary shall allocate funds based on an identification and analysis of highway safety issues and opportunities on Tribal lands, as determined by the Secretary, on application of the Indian Tribal governments for HSIP eligible projects described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4). Eligible projects described in section 148(a)(4) include strategies, activities, and projects on a public road that are consistent with a transportation safety plan; safety study; road safety audit; or systemic safety study and correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature, or address a highway safety problem.
Under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4), eligible projects are limited to the following:
(i) An intersection safety improvement.
(ii) Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition).
(iii) Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips or other warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians, including persons with disabilities.
(iv) Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of crashes.
(v) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of persons with disabilities.
(vi) Construction and improvement of a railway-highway grade crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices.
(vii) The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing.
(viii) Construction of a traffic calming feature.
(ix) Elimination of a roadside hazard.
(x) Installation, replacement, and other improvement of highway signage and pavement markings, or a project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity, that addresses a highway safety problem consistent with an SHSP.
(xi) Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections.
(xii) Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high crash potential.
(xiii) Transportation safety planning.
(xiv) Collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data.
(xv) Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to work zone safety.
(xvi) Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of road users and workers), and crash attenuators.
(xvii) The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce crashes involving vehicles and wildlife.
(xviii) Installation of yellow-green signs and signals at pedestrian and bicycle crossings and in school zones.
(xix) Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads.
(xx) Geometric improvements to a road for safety purposes that improve safety.
(xxi) A road safety audit.
(xxii) Roadway safety infrastructure improvements consistent with the recommendations included in the publication of the Federal Highway Administration entitled “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians” (FHWA-RD-01-103), dated May 2001 or as subsequently revised and updated.
(xxiii) Truck parking facilities eligible for funding under section 1401 of the MAP-21.
(xxiv) Systemic safety improvements.
(xxv) Installation of vehicle-to-infrastructure communication equipment.
(xxvi) Pedestrian hybrid beacons.
(xxvii) Roadway improvements that provide separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, including medians and pedestrian crossing islands.
(xxviii) A physical infrastructure safety project not described in clauses (i) through (xxvii).
For more information regarding eligible activities under HSIP, please see FHWA guidance at:
Upon award, successful applicants will receive the TTPSF funds through their existing TTP contracting methodology with either the FHWA or Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Upon completion of a TTPSF project, funds that are not expended are to be recovered and returned to the FHWA to be made available for the following year's TTPSF grant cycle.
To be selected for a TTPSF award, an applicant must be a federally recognized Indian Tribe and the project must be an eligible project.
Eligible applicants for TTPSF discretionary grants are federally recognized Tribes identified on the list of “Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs” (published at 81 FR 26826). Other entities may partner with a Tribal government to submit an application, but the eligible applicant must be a federally recognized Indian Tribe. A Tribe may submit more than one application; however, only one project may be included in each application.
Recipients of prior TTPSF funds may submit applications during this current round according to the selection criteria. However, to be competitive, the applicant should demonstrate the extent to which the previously funded project or projects has been able to meet estimated project schedules and budget, as well as the ability to realize the outcomes for previous awards.
There is no matching requirement for the TTPSF. However, if the total amount of funding requested for applications rated “highly qualified” or “qualified” exceeds the amount of available funding, FHWA will give priority consideration to those projects that show a commitment of other funding sources to complement the TTPSF funding request. Therefore, leveraging a TTPSF request with other funding sources identified in Section E is encouraged. Additional information about leveraging funds can be found in the frequently asked questions section of the TTPSF Web site:
Application package can be downloaded from the TTPSF Web site:
The FHWA may request additional information, including additional data, to clarify an application, but FHWA encourages applicants to submit the most relevant and complete information they can provide. The FHWA also encourages applicants, to the extent practicable, to provide data and evidence of project merits in a form that is publicly available or verifiable.
The applicants must include the following information in their online application package:
Fill out an online form similar to SF-424 at:
A preview of the online application can also be found on the Web site.
For projects located on a facility not owned by BIA or a Tribe a letter of support for the project is required.
An estimate of the costs in the project should be clearly identified in the project narrative or as an attachment to the project narrative.
Applicants must attach project narrative to their online application form to successfully complete the application process. Applicants must include the project narrative in the attachments section of the online application form.
Applicants must identify the eligibility category for which they are seeking funds in the project narrative. In addition, applicants should address each question or statement in their applications. It is recommended that applicants use standard formatting (
Applicants should demonstrate the responsiveness of their proposals to any pertinent selection criteria with the most relevant information that applicants can provide, and substantiated by data, regardless of whether such information is specifically requested, or identified, in the final notice. Applicants should provide evidence of the feasibility of achieving certain project milestones, financial capacity, and commitment in order to support project readiness.
Consistent with the requirements for an eligible highway safety improvement project under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4), applicants must describe clearly how their project would correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature, or would address a highway safety problem. The application must include supporting data. Formal safety data is limited in many Tribal areas; applicants should support their application with documentation summarizing the best available data that demonstrates a history or risk of transportation incidents which are expected to be reduced by the proposed activity. The optimal data is a summary of police crash reports. However, where police crash reports are not available, news articles, written testimonies, a letter from local law enforcement describing safety performance, health data on injuries, and other documentation of incident history can be accepted. Average daily traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, traffic citation statistics, public surveys, and sign inventories are examples of alternative safety data sources which could be used to supplement incident history.
If police crash reports are not available to support a project application, then-FHWA strongly encourages federally recognized Tribes to conduct an assessment of traffic records (which is an eligible activity for TTPSF). Applicants that do not provide
The data that should support an application varies by project type, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
The FHWA recommends that the project narrative generally adhere to the following basic outline, and include a table of contents, project abstract, maps, and graphics:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. Include a description of how the proposal meets the Selection Criteria identified in Section E, Subsection 1 Criteria.
Each applicant must: (1) Be registered in SAM before submitting its application; (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The USDOT may not make an TTPSF grant to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time USDOT is ready to make an TTPSF grant, USDOT may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an TTPSF grant and use that determination as a basis for making an TTPSF grant to another applicant. Information on SAM can be found at
i. Deadline—Applications must be submitted electronically no later than 11:59 p.m., e.t. on December 11, 2017 (the “application deadline”).
ii. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications in advance of the application deadline; however, applications will not be evaluated, and awards will not be made until after the application deadline.
iii. Upon submission of the applications electronically through the following Web site:
iv. Late Applications—Applications received after the deadline will not be considered except in the case of unforeseen technical difficulties that are beyond the applicant's control. The FHWA will consider late applications on a case-by-case basis. Applicants are encouraged to submit additional information documenting the technical difficulties experienced, including a screen capture of any error messages received.
The TTPSF is not subject to the Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.
There are no funding restrictions on any applications. However, FHWA anticipates high demand for this limited amount of funding and encourages applications with scalable requests that allow more Tribes to receive funding and for requests that identify a commitment of other funding sources to complement the TTPSF funding request. Applicants should clearly demonstrate the independent components of each project that can be completed if only partial funding is provided. Applicants should demonstrate the capacity to successfully implement the proposed request in a timely manner, and ensure that cost estimates and timelines to complete deliverables are included in their applications.
The FHWA will award TTPSF funds based on the selection criteria and policy considerations as outlined below. However, to be competitive, the applicant should demonstrate the extent to which a previously funded project or projects has been able to meet estimated project schedules and budget, as well as the ability to realize the outcomes for previous awards.
The FHWA intends to allocate the TTPSF between three categories as follows: (1) Safety plans; (2) data
The development of a Tribal safety plan that is data-driven, identifies transportation safety issues, prioritizes activities, is coordinated with the State SHSP (all State SHSPs can be found at:
The FHWA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of TTPSF funding requests for data assessment, improvement, and analysis activities: (1) Inclusion of the activity in a completed State SHSP or Tribal transportation safety plan; (2) submission of supporting data that demonstrates the need for the activity; (3) leveraging of private or other public funding; or (4) the project is part of a comprehensive approach to safety which includes other safety efforts.
Examples of eligible data assessment, improvement, and analysis activities include:
• Collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data;
• Systemic safety studies; and
• Road safety audits/assessments.
The FHWA will use the following criteria in the evaluation of funding requests under this category: (1) Inclusion of the project or activity in a completed State SHSP or Tribal transportation safety plan, or inclusion of the activity in a completed road safety audit, engineering study, impact assessment or other engineering document; (2) submission of supporting data that demonstrates the need for the project; (3) ownership of the facility, if applicable; (4) leveraging of private or other public funding; (5) time elapsed since the Tribe has last received funding for a TTPSF engineering improvement project, if applicable; or (6) the project is part of a comprehensive approach to safety which includes other safety efforts.
Examples of infrastructure improvement and other eligible activities:
• An intersection safety improvement;
• Pavement and shoulder widening (including addition of a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condition);
• Installation of rumble strips or another warning device, if the rumble strips or other warning devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians, including persons with disabilities;
• Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an intersection or other location with a high frequency of crashes;
• An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of persons with disabilities;
• Construction and improvement of a railway-highway grade crossing safety feature, including installation of protective devices;
• The conduct of a model traffic enforcement activity at a railway-highway crossing;
• Construction of a traffic calming feature;
• Elimination of a roadside hazard;
• Installation, replacement, and other improvement of highway signage and pavement markings, or a project to maintain minimum levels of retroreflectivity that addresses a highway safety problem consistent with a Tribal or State strategic highway safety plan;
• Installation of a priority control system for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections;
• Installation of a traffic control or other warning device at a location with high crash potential;
• Planning integrated interoperable emergency communications equipment, operational activities, or traffic enforcement activities (including police assistance) relating to work zone safety;
• Installation of guardrails, barriers (including barriers between construction work zones and traffic lanes for the safety of road users and workers), and crash attenuators;
• The addition or retrofitting of structures or other measures to eliminate or reduce crashes involving vehicles and wildlife;
• Installation of yellow-green signs and signals at pedestrian and bicycle crossings and in school zones;
• Construction and operational improvements on high risk rural roads;
• Geometric improvements to a road for safety purposes that improve safety;
• Roadway safety infrastructure improvements consistent with the recommendations included in the FHWA publication entitled “Highway Design Handbook for Older Drivers and Pedestrians” (FHWA-RD-01-103, dated May 2001 or as subsequently revised and updated;
• Truck parking facilities eligible for funding under section 1401 of MAP-21;
• Systemic safety improvements;
• Installation of a vehicle to infrastructure communication equipment;
• Pedestrian hybrid beacons;
• Roadway improvements that provide separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, including medians and pedestrian crossing islands; and
• Other physical infrastructure safety projects.
The TTPSF grant applications will be evaluated in accordance with evaluation process discussed below. The FHWA will establish an evaluation team to review each application received by FHWA prior to the application deadline. The FHWA will lead the evaluation team, which will include members from the BIA. The evaluation team will include technical and professional staff with relevant experience and expertise in Tribal transportation safety issues. The evaluation team will be responsible for evaluating and rating all eligible projects. The evaluation team will review each application against the evaluation criteria in each of the categories and assign a rating of “Highly Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified” to each application for the FHWA Administrator's review. The FHWA Administrator will forward funding recommendations to the Office of the Secretary. The final funding decisions will be made by the Secretary of Transportation.
All applications will be evaluated and assigned a rating of “Highly Qualified,” “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified.” The ratings, as defined below, are proposed within each priority funding category as follows:
a.
b.
a.
Applicants should be aware that while it is anticipated that most of these projects will be categorical exclusions because they do not lead to construction or have potentially significant traffic or other impacts, depending on the relationship between the overall project and the independent component, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for the independent component may have to include evaluation of all project components as connected, similar, or cumulative actions, as detailed at 40 CFR 1508.25. Priority consideration will also be given to funding requests that include a commitment of other funding sources to complement the TTPSF, and those requests where the applicants demonstrate the capacity to successfully implement the proposed project in a timely manner.
b.
If the total amount of funding requested for applications rated as “qualified” exceeds the amount of available funding, FHWA will give priority funding consideration to one or more independent components of a qualified project. To be eligible, a component must meet eligibility criteria and must be a transportation safety project that has independent utility (
c.
a.
If the total amount of funding requested for applications rated as “highly qualified” exceeds the amount of available funding, FHWA will give priority funding consideration to one or more independent components of a highly qualified project. To be eligible, a component must meet eligibility criteria and must be a transportation improvement that has independent utility (
b.
c.
The FHWA will announce the awarded projects by posting a list of selected projects at
All awards will be administered pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards found in 2 CFR part 200. Applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations set forth in title 23, U.S.C., and title 23 of the CFR apply.
The TTPSF will be administered the same way as all TTP funds: FHWA Agreement Tribes will receive funds in accordance with their Program Agreement through a Referenced Funding Agreement (RFA); BIA Agreement Tribes will receive their funds through their BIA Regional Office; and Compact Tribes will receive their funds through the Department of the Interior's Office of Self Governance.
Required reporting follows the requirements for regular TTP funds.
For further information concerning this notice please contact Russell Garcia, TTPSF Program Manager, via email at
All information submitted as part of or in support of any application shall use publicly available data or data that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry practice and standards, to the extent possible. If the application includes information you consider to be a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission “Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI),” (2) mark each affected page “CBI,” and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions.
Section 1118 of Pub. L. 114-94; 23 U.S.C. 202(e).
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before October 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before October 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) the EPA is required to conduct in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category with an ample margin of safety, and we identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, we are proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. However, the EPA is proposing amendments to correct and clarify rule requirements and provisions. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address:
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As defined in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA section 112(d) requires us to promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
MACT standards must reflect the maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable through the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, measures that: (1) Reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) capture or treat pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; (4) are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator training or certification); or (5) are a combination of the above. CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E). The MACT standards may take the form of design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards where the EPA first determines either that: (1) A pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be inconsistent with law; or (2) the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. CAA section 112(h)(1)-(2).
The MACT “floor” is the minimum control level allowed for MACT standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT floor for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but not less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, the EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on considerations of the cost of achieving the emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
The EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years. CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review, the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any remaining (
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step process for developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's interpretation of “ample margin of safety” developed in the
The first step in the process of evaluating residual risk is the determination of acceptable risk. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA cannot consider cost in identifying the emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an acceptable level. The second step is the determination of whether standards must be further revised in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The ample margin of safety is the level at which the standards must be set, unless an even more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
The Agency in the Benzene NESHAP concluded that “the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information” and that the “judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor.” Benzene NESHAP at 38046. The determination of what represents an “acceptable” risk is based on a judgment of “what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live” (
In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that “EPA will generally presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than approximately one in 10 thousand, that risk level is considered acceptable.” 54 FR at 38045, September 14, 1989. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (or maximum individual risk (MIR)) as being “the estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.”
Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using the MIR as a metric for determining acceptability, we acknowledged in the Benzene NESHAP that “consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.”
As noted earlier, in
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine, for source categories subject to MACT standards, whether those standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the second step of the inquiry, determining an `ample margin of safety,' again includes consideration of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even further * * *. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the agency will establish the standard at
According to CAA section 112(f)(2)(A), if the MACT standards for HAP “classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than one in one million,” the EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or subcategory), as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines that the existing standards (
The CAA does not specifically define the terms “individual most exposed,” “acceptable level,” and “ample margin of safety.” In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 FR at 38044-38045, September 14, 1989, we stated as an overall objective:
In protecting public health with an ample margin of safety under section 112, EPA strives to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million and (2) limiting to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [
In the ample margin of safety decision process, the Agency again considers all of the health risks and other health information considered in the first step, including the incremental risk reduction associated with standards more stringent than the MACT standard or a more stringent standard that the EPA has determined is necessary to ensure risk is acceptable. In the ample margin of safety analysis, the Agency considers additional factors, including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989.
The EPA initially promulgated the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP on June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898), under title 40, part 63, subpart LLL of the CFR (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). The rule was amended on April 5, 2002 (67 FR 16614); July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44766); December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72580); December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76518); September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54970); January 18, 2011 (76 FR 2832); February 12, 2013 (78 FR 10006); July 27, 2015 (80 FR 44772); September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54728); and July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48356). The amendments further defined affected cement kilns as those used to manufacture Portland cement, except for kilns that burn hazardous waste, and are subject to and regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, and kilns that burn solid waste, which are subject to the CISWI rule under 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD. Additionally, onsite sources that are subject to standards for nonmetallic mineral processing plants in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO are not subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. Crushers are not covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL regardless of their location. Subpart LLL NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from new and existing Portland cement production facilities that are major or area sources of HAP, with one exception. Kilns located at facilities that are area sources, are not regulated for hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions.
Portland cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process in which cement is made by grinding and heating a mixture of raw materials such as limestone, clay, sand, and iron ore in a rotary kiln. The kiln is a large furnace that is fueled by coal, oil, gas, coke, and/or various waste materials. The product (known as clinker) from the kiln is cooled, ground, and then mixed with a small amount of gypsum to produce Portland cement.
The main source of air toxics emissions from a Portland cement plant is the kiln. Emissions originate from the burning of fuels and heating of feed materials. Air toxics are also emitted from the grinding, cooling, and materials handling steps in the manufacturing process. Pollutants regulated under the subpart LLL NESHAP are particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP metals, total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP other than dioxins and furans (D/F), organic HAP as an alternative to the limit for THC, mercury, HCl (from major sources only), and D/F expressed as toxic equivalents (TEQ). The kiln is regulated for all HAP and raw material dryers are regulated for THC or the alternative organic HAP. Clinker coolers are regulated for PM. Finish mills and raw mills are regulated for opacity. During periods of startup and shutdown, the kiln, clinker cooler, and raw material dryer are regulated by work practices. Open clinker storage piles are regulated by work practices. The emission standards for the affected sources are summarized in Table 2.
For the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category, we did not submit data collection requests to the industry or request emissions testing by the industry for the information used in this analysis. The data and data sources used to support this action are described in section II.D below.
For the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category, a comprehensive list of facilities and kilns was compiled using information from the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (
The risk modeling dataset was developed in a two-step process. Initially, a draft dataset was developed using available information on emissions, stack parameters, and emission source locations. In step two, the draft dataset for each Portland cement manufacturing facility was submitted to the facility or its parent company to review for accuracy. Based on the review by each company and the submittal of documentation supporting the changes, the risk modeling dataset was revised. Copies of the datasets sent to the companies for review and the revised datasets and supporting documentation submitted by each company are contained in the docket to this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442).
The initial draft dataset was developed using emission test data to the extent possible. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, the EPA requires that performance test results be submitted to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). Emissions data are publicly available through the EPA's Web Factor Information Retrieval System (WebFIRE) using the EPA's electronic reporting tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site (
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this proposal.
The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause non-cancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause non-cancer health effects. The assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects. The eight sections that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following document which provides more information on the risk assessment inputs and models:
The pollutants regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL are PM, HCl, THC, mercury, and D/F. The emission standards apply to Portland cement plants that are major or area sources, with one exception. Kilns that are located at a facility that is an area source are not subject to the emission limits for HCl. Sources subject to the emissions limit for THC may elect to meet an alternative limit for total organic HAP. For purposes of subpart LLL, total organic HAP is the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 or ASTM D6348-03 or a combination of these methods, as appropriate. The affected sources at Portland cement plants that were accounted for in the risk modeling dataset include the kiln, as well as any alkali bypass or inline raw mill or inline coal mill, clinker coolers, and raw material dryers. Kilns fueled with hazardous waste or solid waste and not subject to subpart LLL were excluded from the dataset. All affected sources in the risk modeling dataset emit through stacks. As mentioned in section II.D above, the risk modeling dataset used for estimating actual emissions was developed in a two-step process. Initially, the dataset was developed using available information and is described below. The dataset for each Portland cement manufacturing facility was then submitted to the facility, or its parent company, to review for accuracy. Based on the review by each company, and the submittal of documentation supporting the changes, the risk modeling dataset was then revised. Copies of the datasets sent to the companies for review and the revised datasets submitted by each company are contained in the docket to this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442).
As described in section II.D above, available emissions data were extracted from each facility's submitted ERT file. To ensure that the emissions data reflect process and control device changes made at each Portland cement plant to comply with the 2013 final amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL (February 12, 2013, 78 FR 10006), emissions data from mid-2015 and later were used as inputs into the emissions modeling file.
Emissions data are reported in ERT in units of pounds per hour (lb/hr), which were multiplied by a facility's reported annual hours of operation to calculate emissions in tpy. If hours of operation were not reported, the default of 8,760 hours per year was used. When emissions data were not available in ERT, the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL emissions limit was substituted as a placeholder for actual emissions until the data set could be reviewed and revised by industry.
Subpart LLL of 40 CFR part 63 uses PM as a surrogate for non-mercury metallic HAP and THC as a surrogate for organic HAP. The specific non-mercury metallic HAP that went into the modeling file are antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. As an alternative to measuring THC, subpart LLL allows sources to measure directly their emissions of the nine organic HAP listed in subpart LLL. The specific organic HAP that went into the modeling file are acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, naphthalene, styrene, toluene, m-xylene, o-xylene, p-xylene, and benzene. Because subpart LLL compliance testing is typically performed for the surrogates PM and THC, there are limited test data available for compound-specific non-mercury metallic and organic HAP emissions. To generate compound-specific metallic HAP and organic HAP emissions estimates, recent emissions tests were identified in which testing was done for compound-specific metallic and organic HAP emissions. To account for recent changes in emission controls and production processes that have been implemented by facilities to comply with the subpart LLL MACT standards, emissions testing that occurred in 2015 and later were used to develop compound-specific estimates for metallic HAP and organic HAP emissions. In the case of D/F, the subpart LLL emission limits for D/F were unchanged in the 2013 final rule. Thus, older D/F test data could be used along with more recent test data.
The approach used to develop the final risk modeling dataset assures the quality of the data at various steps in the process of developing the dataset. The initial step in developing the dataset was to compile a list of affected facilities. A comprehensive list of cement manufacturing facilities and kilns was derived from the EPA's GHGRP, which requires reporting by all cement manufacturing facilities. Not all Portland cement kilns are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. Kilns that burn commercial and industrial solid waste are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC and DDDD. Kilns that burn hazardous waste are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. To help identify the cement kilns that are subject to subpart LLL regulations, the list of facilities and kilns was submitted to the PCA for review. In their review, they provided useful information on which cement manufacturing facilities were or were not subject to subpart LLL, whether kilns and clinker coolers used separate or combined stacks, the presence of additional affected sources not on the initial list, and the presence of kilns that were not currently operating. For those kilns identified as not currently operating, the appropriate state permitting agency was contacted to determine whether the kiln was currently permitted to operate. If the kiln was not operating, but retained their title V permit, they were kept in the dataset. In other instances, company representatives were contacted to verify that kilns at their facilities were or were
The derivation of actual emission estimates is discussed in more detail in the document,
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during the specified annual time period. In some cases, these “actual” emission levels are lower than the emission levels required to comply with the current MACT standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards is referred to as the “MACT-allowable” emissions level. We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
Allowable emissions are calculated using the emission limits in the rule for existing sources along with the emission factors for metallic HAP, organic HAP, and D/F congeners, the annual production capacity, and, when the emission limit is a concentration-based limit, the annual hours of operation reported by each source. We note that these are conservative estimates of allowable emissions. It is unlikely that emissions would be at the maximum limit at all times because sources cannot emit HAP at a level that is exactly equal to the limit and remain in compliance with the standard due to day-to-day variability in process operations and emissions. On average, facilities must emit at some level below the MACT limit to ensure that they are always in compliance. The derivation of allowable emissions is discussed in more detail in the document,
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector HEM-3). The HEM-3 performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
The air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model (AERMOD) is one of the EPA's preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial facilities.
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used the
The EPA estimated incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with emissions from the facilities in the source category as the sum of the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including those classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
To assess the risk of non-cancer health effects from chronic exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or target organ-specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic reference value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. First, the chronic reference level can be the EPA reference concentration (RfC) (
As mentioned above, in order to characterize non-cancer chronic effects, and in response to key recommendations from the SAB, the EPA selects dose-response values that reflect the best available science for all HAP included in RTR risk assessments.
The EPA also evaluated screening estimates of acute exposures and risks for each of the HAP (for which appropriate acute dose-response values are available) at the point of highest potential off-site exposure for each facility. To do this, the EPA estimated the risks when both the peak hourly emissions rate and worst-case dispersion conditions occur. We also assume that a person is located at the point of highest impact during that same time. In accordance with our mandate in section 112 of the CAA, we use the point of highest off-site exposure to assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual. The acute HQ is the estimated acute exposure divided by the acute dose-response value. In each case, the EPA calculated acute HQ values using best available, short-term dose-response values. These acute dose-response values, which are described below, include the acute REL, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL) and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations. As discussed below, we used conservative assumptions for emissions rates, meteorology, and exposure location.
As described in the CalEPA's
AEGL values were derived in response to recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC). The National Advisory Committee (NAC) for the Development of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances, usually referred to as the AEGL Committee or the NAC/AEGL committee, developed AEGL values for at least 273 of the 329 chemicals on the AEGL priority chemical list. The last meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee was in April 2010, and its charter expired in October 2011. The NAC/AEGL Committee ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (
As described in
The document lays out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by stating that “the primary purpose of the AEGL program and the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances is to develop guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.”
The AEGL-1 value is then specifically defined as “the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m
ERPG values are derived for use in emergency response, as described in the American Industrial Hygiene Association's Emergency Response Planning (ERP) Committee document titled,
As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values include the similarly-defined severity levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has not been developed because the types of effects for these chemicals are not consistent with the AEGL-1/ERPG-1 definitions; in these instances, we compare higher severity level AEGL-2 or ERPG-2 values to our modeled exposure levels to screen for potential acute concerns. When AEGL-1/ERPG-1 values are available, they are used in our acute risk assessments.
Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure durations are typically lower than their corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 values. Even though their definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1 values are often the same as the corresponding ERPG-1 values, and AEGL-2 values are often equal to ERPG-2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk assessments typically result when basing them on the acute REL value for a particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1 value).
To develop screening estimates of acute exposures in the absence of hourly emissions data, generally we first develop estimates of maximum hourly emissions rates by multiplying the
As part of our acute risk assessment process, for cases where acute HQ values from the screening step are less than or equal to 1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening analysis), acute impacts are deemed negligible and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, additional site-specific data are considered to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For this source category, since no HQ was greater than 1, no further analysis was performed.
Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous measurements over time to see how the emissions vary by each hour over an entire year. Having a frequency distribution of hourly emissions rates over a year would allow us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate potential threshold exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and elements adopted in this screening analysis. Recognizing that this level of data is rarely available, we instead rely on the multiplier approach.
To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB's 2010 peer review of the EPA's RTR risk assessment methodologies,
The EPA conducted a screening analysis examining the potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via routes other than inhalation (
For the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category, we identified emissions of lead compounds, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, arsenic compounds, and D/F. Because one or more of these PB-HAP are emitted by at least one facility in the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category, we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. In this step, we determined whether the facility-specific emission rates of the emitted PB-HAP were large enough to create the potential for significant non-inhalation human health risks under reasonable worst-case conditions. To facilitate this step, we developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP using a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates are: Cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, arsenic compounds, and D/F and polycyclic organic matter (POM). We conducted a sensitivity analysis on the screening scenario to ensure that its key design parameters would represent the upper end of the range of possible values, such that it would represent a conservative, but not impossible scenario. The facility-specific PB-HAP emission rates were compared to their respective screening threshold emission rate to assess the potential for significant human health risks via non-inhalation pathways. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 TRIM-screen or Tier 1 screen.
For the purpose of developing emission rates for the Tier 1 TRIM-screen, we derived emission levels for these PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) at which the maximum excess lifetime cancer risk would be 1-in-1 million (
In the Tier 2 screen, the location of each facility that exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates is used to refine the assumptions associated with the environmental scenario while maintaining the exposure scenario assumptions. A key assumption that is part of the Tier 1 screen is that a lake is located near the facility; we confirm the existence of lakes near the facility as part of the Tier 2 screen. We also examine the differences between local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1 screen. We then adjust the risk-based Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for the screening scenario change with meteorology and environmental
When tiered screening values for any facility indicate a potential health risk to the public, we may conduct a more refined multipathway assessment. A refined assessment was conducted for mercury in lieu of conducting a Tier 3 screen. To select the candidate facilities for the site-specific assessment, we analyzed the facilities with the maximum exceedances of the Tier 2 screening values as well as the combined effect from multiple facilities on lakes within the same watershed. In addition to looking at the Tier 2 screen value for each lake, the location and number of lakes or farms impacted for each watershed was evaluated to assess elevation/topography influences. A review of the source category identified 3 facilities located in Midlothian, Texas, as the best candidates for mercury impacts. These candidate sites were selected because of their exceedances of the Tier 2 mercury screening value and based upon the above considerations.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission rate for them, we compared maximum estimated 1-hour acute inhalation exposures with the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.
For further information on the multipathway analysis approach, see the
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening for potential multipathway risks, we also estimated risks considering the potential emission reductions that would be achieved by the control options under consideration. In these cases, the expected emission reductions were applied to the specific HAP and emission points in the RTR emissions dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk and incremental risk reductions.
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential for adverse environmental effects as required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines “adverse environmental effect” as “any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad areas.”
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which we refer to as “environmental HAP,” in its screening analysis: Six PB-HAP and two acid gases. The six PB-HAP are cadmium compounds, D/F, arsenic compounds, POM, mercury compounds (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The two acid gases are HCl and hydrogen fluoride (HF). The rationale for including these eight HAP in the environmental risk screening analysis is presented below.
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The PB-HAP are taken up, through sediment, soil, water, and/or ingestion of other organisms, by plants or animals (
In addition to accounting for almost all of the mass of PB-HAP emitted, we note that the TRIM.FaTE model that we use to evaluate multipathway risk allows us to estimate concentrations of cadmium compounds, D/F, arsenic compounds, POM, and mercury compounds in soil, sediment, and water. For lead compounds, we currently do not have the ability to calculate these concentrations using the TRIM.FaTE model. Therefore, to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental effects from lead compounds, we compare the estimated HEM-modeled exposures from the source category emissions of lead with the level of the Secondary Lead NAAQS.
Due to their well-documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants, we include two acid gases, HCl and HF, in the environmental screening analysis. According to the 2005 NEI, HCl and HF account for about 99 percent (on a mass basis) of the total acid gas HAP emitted by stationary sources in the U.S. In addition to the potential to cause direct damage to plants, high concentrations of HF in the air have been linked to fluorosis in livestock. Air concentrations of these HAP are already calculated as part of the human multipathway exposure and risk screening analysis using the HEM3-AERMOD air dispersion model, and we are able to use the air dispersion modeling results to estimate the
The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond the eight HAP discussed above may have the potential to cause adverse environmental effects. Therefore, the EPA may include other relevant HAP in its environmental risk screening in the future, as modeling science and resources allow. The EPA invites comment on the extent to which other HAP emitted by the source category may cause adverse environmental effects. Such information should include references to peer-reviewed ecological effects benchmarks that are of sufficient quality for making regulatory decisions, as well as information on the presence of organisms located near facilities within the source category that such benchmarks indicate could be adversely affected.
An important consideration in the development of the EPA's screening methodology is the selection of ecological assessment endpoints and benchmarks. Ecological assessment endpoints are defined by the ecological entity (
For PB-HAP (other than lead compounds), we evaluated the following community-level ecological assessment endpoints to screen for organisms directly exposed to HAP in soils, sediment, and water:
• Local terrestrial communities (
• Local benthic (
• Local aquatic (water-column) communities (including fish and plankton) exposed to PB-HAP in nearby surface waters.
For PB-HAP (other than lead compounds), we also evaluated the following population-level ecological assessment endpoint to screen for indirect HAP exposures of top consumers via the bioaccumulation of HAP in food chains:
• Piscivorous (
For cadmium compounds, D/F, arsenic compounds, POM, and mercury compounds, we identified the available ecological benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP (
•
•
•
We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. In general, the EPA sources that are used at a programmatic level (
Benchmarks for all effect levels are not available for all PB-HAP and assessment endpoints. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and widespread.
The environmental screening analysis also evaluated potential damage and reduced productivity of plants due to direct exposure to acid gases in the air. For acid gases, we evaluated the following ecological assessment endpoint:
• Local terrestrial plant communities with foliage exposed to acidic gaseous HAP in the air.
The selection of ecological benchmarks for the effects of acid gases on plants followed the same approach as for PB-HAP (
For HF, the EPA identified chronic benchmark concentrations for plants and evaluated chronic exposures to plants in the screening analysis. High concentrations of HF in the air have also been linked to fluorosis in livestock. However, the HF concentrations at which fluorosis in livestock occur are higher than those at which plant damage begins. Therefore, the benchmarks for plants are protective of both plants and livestock.
For the environmental risk screening analysis, the EPA first determined whether any facilities in the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry sources emitted any of the eight environmental HAP. For the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category, we identified emissions of lead compounds, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, arsenic compounds, D/F, and HCl.
Because one or more of the eight environmental HAP evaluated are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
For cadmium compounds, arsenic compounds, mercury compounds, POM, and D/F, the environmental screening analysis consists of two tiers, while lead compounds are analyzed differently as discussed earlier. In the first tier, we determined whether the maximum facility-specific emission rates of each of the emitted environmental HAP were large enough to create the potential for adverse environmental effects under reasonable worst-case environmental conditions. These are the same environmental conditions used in the human multipathway exposure and risk screening analysis.
To facilitate this step, TRIM.FaTE was run for each PB-HAP under hypothetical environmental conditions designed to provide conservatively high
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening analysis, the emission rate screening levels are adjusted to account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screen. The modeling domain for each facility in the Tier 2 analysis consists of 8 octants. Each octant contains 5 modeled soil concentrations at various distances from the facility (5 soil concentrations × 8 octants = total of 40 soil concentrations per facility) and one lake with modeled concentrations for water, sediment, and fish tissue. In the Tier 2 environmental risk screening analysis, the 40 soil concentration points are averaged to obtain an average soil concentration for each facility for each PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening level, the facility passes the screen, and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening level, the facility does not pass the screen and, therefore, may have the potential to cause adverse environmental effects. Such facilities are evaluated further to investigate factors such as the magnitude and characteristics of the area of exceedance.
The environmental screening analysis evaluates the potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic exposure to acid gases. The environmental risk screening methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screen that compares the average off-site ambient air concentration over the modeling domain to ecological benchmarks for each of the acid gases. Because air concentrations are compared directly to the ecological benchmarks, emission-based screening levels are not calculated for acid gases.
For purposes of ecological risk screening, the EPA identifies a potential for adverse environmental effects to plant communities from exposure to acid gases when the average concentration of the HAP around a facility exceeds the LOAEL ecological benchmark. In such cases, we further investigate factors such as the magnitude and characteristics of the area of exceedance (
For further information on the environmental screening analysis approach, see the
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine the risks from the entire “facility,” where the facility includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data. For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment using the 2014 NEI. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted “facility-wide” for the populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this proposal. We specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of interest. The
In the Benzene NESHAP, we concluded that risk estimation uncertainty should be considered in our decision-making under the ample margin of safety framework. Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are health protective and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in the
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to apply. For RTR assessments,
The EPA did not include the effects of human mobility on exposures in the assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.
In addition, the assessment predicted the chronic exposures at the centroid of each populated census block as surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all people living in that block. Using the census block centroid to predict chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures for people in the census block who live farther from the facility and under-predict exposures for people in the census block who live closer to the facility. Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic exposures may lead to a potential understatement or overstatement of the true maximum impact, but is an unbiased estimate of average risk and incidence. We reduce this uncertainty by analyzing large census blocks near facilities using aerial imagery and adjusting the location of the block centroid to better represent the population in the block, as well as adding additional receptor locations where the block population is not well represented by a single location.
The assessment evaluates the cancer inhalation risks associated with pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time that modeled emission sources at facilities actually operate (
The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic exposures to ambient (outdoor) levels of pollutants. Because most people spend the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures may not be as high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to ambient levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles, indoor levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to result in an overestimate of 25 to 30 percent of exposures.
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA that should be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations. These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption that a person is located at this point during this same time period. For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from chronic exposures and non-cancer effects from both chronic and acute exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is brought out in the EPA's
Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That is, they represent a “plausible upper limit to the true value of a quantity” (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit).
Chronic non-cancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral exposure (RfD) to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive values that are intended to be “without appreciable risk,” the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the available data. The UF are applied to derive reference values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. The UF are commonly default values,
While collectively termed “UF,” these factors account for a number of different quantitative considerations when using observed animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) Variation in susceptibility among the members of the human population (
Many of the UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute reference values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations, but they more often use individual UF values that may be less than 10. The UF are applied based on chemical-specific or health effect-specific information (
Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose, and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of short-term dose-response values at different levels of severity should be factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Although every effort is made to identify appropriate human health effect dose-response assessment values for all pollutants emitted by the sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response assessment value is available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for new IRIS assessment of that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions, including with regard to consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels of PB-HAP emissions to determine whether a refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary. This determination is based on the results of a three-tiered screening analysis that relies on the outputs from models that estimate environmental pollutant concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP. Two important types of uncertainty
Model uncertainty concerns whether the selected models are appropriate for the assessment being conducted and whether they adequately represent the actual processes that might occur for that situation. An example of model uncertainty is the question of whether the model adequately describes the movement of a pollutant through the soil. This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screen are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the multipathway risk assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the multipathway screen, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally-representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface water and soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway assessment, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby increasing the usefulness of the screen. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for Tier 1 and Tier 2.
For both Tiers 1 and 2 of the multipathway assessment, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities do screen out, we are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants or facilities do not screen out, it does not mean that multipathway impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that possibility and that a refined multipathway analysis for the site might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the source category. The site-specific multipathway assessment improves upon the screens by utilizing AERMOD to estimate dispersion and deposition impacts upon delineated watersheds and farms. This refinement also provides improved soil and water run-off calculations for effected watershed(s) and adjacent parcels in estimating media concentrations for each PB-HAP modeled.
For further information on uncertainties and the Tier 1 and 2 screening methods, refer to Appendix 5 of the risk report, “
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels of environmental HAP emissions to perform an environmental screening assessment. The environmental screening assessment is based on the outputs from models that estimate environmental HAP concentrations. The TRIM.FaTE multipathway model and the AERMOD air dispersion model, are used to estimate environmental HAP concentrations for the environmental screening analysis. The human multipathway screening analysis are based upon the TRIM.FaTE model, while the site-specific assessments incorporate AERMOD model runs into the TRIM.FaTE model runs. Therefore, both screening assessments have similar modeling uncertainties.
Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR environmental screening assessments (and inherent to any assessment that relies on environmental modeling) are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.
Model uncertainty concerns whether the selected models are appropriate for the assessment being conducted and whether they adequately represent the movement and accumulation of environmental HAP emissions in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the models used in the screen are appropriate and state-of-the-art for the environmental risk assessments conducted in support of our RTR analyses.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier 1 of the environmental screen for PB-HAP, we configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk to reduce the likelihood that the results indicate the risks are lower than they actually are. This was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally-representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of the area of interest, the location and size of any bodies of water, meteorology, surface water and soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. In Tier 1, we used the maximum facility-specific emissions for the PB-HAP (other than lead compounds, which were evaluated by comparison to the Secondary Lead NAAQS) that were included in the environmental screening assessment and each of the media when comparing to ecological benchmarks. This is consistent with the conservative design of Tier 1 of the screen. In Tier 2 of the environmental screening analysis for PB-HAP, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end national values, and we identify the locations of water bodies near the facility location. By refining the
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For both Tiers 1 and 2 of the environmental screening assessment, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach reduces the likelihood of not identifying potential risks for adverse environmental impacts.
Uncertainty also exists in the ecological benchmarks for the environmental risk screening analysis. We established a hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment endpoint. In general, EPA benchmarks used at a programmatic level (
In all cases (except for lead compounds, which were evaluated through a comparison to the NAAQS), we searched for benchmarks at the following three effect levels, as described in section III.A.6 of this preamble:
1. A no-effect level (
2. Threshold-effect level (
3. Probable effect level (
For some ecological assessment endpoint/environmental HAP combinations, we could identify benchmarks for all three effect levels, but for most, we could not. In one case, where different agencies derived significantly different numbers to represent a threshold for effect, we included both. In several cases, only a single benchmark was available. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we used all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether risk exists and if the risks could be considered significant and widespread.
The EPA evaluates the following eight HAP in the environmental risk screening assessment: cadmium compounds, D/F, arsenic compounds, POM, mercury compounds (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), lead compounds, HCl, and HF, where applicable. These eight HAP represent pollutants that can cause adverse impacts for plants and animals either through direct exposure to HAP in the air or through exposure to HAP that is deposited from the air onto soils and surface waters. These eight HAP also represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful environmental risk screening assessment. For other HAP not included in our screening assessment, the model has not been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases, depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond the eight HAP that we are evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse environmental effects and, therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and resources allow.
Further information on uncertainties and the Tier 1 and 2 environmental screening methods is provided in Appendix 5 of the document,
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply a two-step process to address residual risk. In the first step, the EPA determines whether risks are acceptable. This determination “considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
In past residual risk actions, the EPA considered a number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the categories under review, including the MIR, the number of persons in various risk ranges, cancer incidence, the maximum non-cancer HI and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard. See,
The Agency is considering these various measures of health information to inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety under CAA section 112(f). As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, “the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to any single factor” and, thus, “[t]he Administrator believes that the acceptability of risk under [previous] section 112 is best judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and information.” 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh those factors for each source category. In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained that:
See 54 FR at 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explained that “an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other health risk factors.”
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the source categories in question, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in these categories.
The Agency understands the potential importance of considering an individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing non-cancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those reflected in this proposal. The Agency is: (1) Conducting facility-wide assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as other emission points within the facilities; (2) considering sources in the same category whose emissions result in exposures to the same individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from all carcinogens and aggregate non-cancer HI from all non-carcinogens affecting the same target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-wide HAP risks in the context of
Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we identified such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether it is “necessary” to revise the emissions standards, we analyzed the technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts, as well as considering the emission reductions. We also considered the appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting existing sources.
Based on our analyses of the available data and information, we identified potential developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. For this exercise, we considered any of the following to be a “development”:
• Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered during development of the original MACT standards;
• Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original
• Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards;
• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not identified or considered during development of the original MACT standards; and
• Any significant changes in the cost (including cost effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed (or last updated) the NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.
Table 3 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category was estimated to be 1-in-1 million and 4-in-1 million, respectively, from volatile HAP being emitted from the kilns. The total estimated cancer incidence from Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry emission sources based on actual emission levels is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 100 years. The total estimated cancer incidence from Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry emission sources based on allowable emission levels is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 33 years. Emissions of formaldehyde, benzene, naphthalene, and acetaldehyde contributed 91 percent to this cancer incidence. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million considering actual emissions was estimated to be approximately 130; for allowable emissions, approximately 2,300 people were estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.
The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be 0.02 and 0.06, respectively, with formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and hydrochloric acid driving the TOSHI value.
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum acute noncancer HQ value for the source category was less than 1. Acute HQs are based upon actual emissions.
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from 70 of the 91 facilities in the source category exceed the screening values for the carcinogenic PB-HAP (D/F and arsenic) and that PB-HAP emissions from 68 of the 91 facilities exceed the screening values for mercury, a noncarcinogenic PB-HAP. Cadmium emissions were below the Tier 1 emission noncancer screening level for each facility based upon the combined Farmer and Fisher scenarios. For the PB-HAP and facilities that did not screen out at Tier 1, we conducted a Tier 2 screening analysis.
The Tier 2 screen replaces some of the assumptions used in Tier 1 with site-specific data, the location of fishable lakes, and local wind direction and speed. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-end assumptions about consumption of local fish and locally grown or raised foods (adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption for fish
Based on the Tier 2 screening analysis, 45 facilities emit D/F and arsenic that exceed the Tier 2 cancer screening value. D/F emissions exceeded the screening value by a factor of as much as 100 for the fisher scenario and by as much as 30 for the farmer scenario. For arsenic, the facility with the largest exceedance of the cancer screening value had an exceedance of 10 times the Tier 1 emission rate level resulting in a Tier 2 screening value less than 1 for both the Fisher and Farmer scenarios. For mercury, 24 facilities emit mercury emissions above the noncancer screening value, with at least one facility exceeding the screening value by a factor of 30 for the Fisher scenario. When we considered the effect multiple facilities within the source category could have on common lake(s) in the modeling domain, mercury emissions exceeded the noncancer screening value by a factor of 40.
For D/F, we conducted a Tier 3 multipathway screen for the facility with the highest Tier 2 multipathway cancer screen (a value of 100) for the Fisher scenario. The next highest facility had a Tier 2 cancer screen value of 40. Tier 3 has three individual stages, and we progressed through each of those stages until either the facility's PB-HAP emissions did not exceed the screening value or all three stages had been completed. These stages included lake, plume rise, and time-series assessments. Based on this Tier 3 screening analysis, the MIR facility had D/F emissions that exceeded the screening value by a factor of 20 for the Fisher scenario. Further details on the Tier 3 screening analysis can be found in Appendix 11 of
An exceedance of a screening value in any of the tiers cannot be equated with a risk value or a HQ (or HI). Rather, it represents a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For example, facility emissions exceeding the screening value by a factor of 2 for a non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, facility emissions exceeding the screening value by a factor of 20 for a carcinogen means that we are confident that the risk is lower than 20-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the health-protective assumptions that are in the screens: we choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the screens; and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that would lead to a high total exposure.
For mercury emissions, we conducted a site-specific assessment. Analysis of the facilities with the highest Tier 2 screen values helped identify the location for the site-specific assessment and the facilitie(s) to model with TRIM_FaTE. We also considered the effect multiple facilities within the source category could have on common lake(s) in the modeling domain. The selection of the facility(s) for the site-specific assessment also included evaluating the number and location of lakes impacted, watershed boundaries, and land-use features around the target lakes, (
The three facilities selected are located in Midlothian, Texas. One of the three facilities had the largest Tier 2 screen value, as well as the lake with the highest aggregated noncancer screen value for mercury with a lake size of over 6,600 acres. These sites were selected because of the Tier 2 mercury screening results and based on the feasibility, with respect to the modeling framework, of obtaining parameter values for the region surrounding the facilities. We expect that the exposure scenarios we assessed are among the highest that might be encountered for other facilities in this source category.
The refined site-specific multipathway assessment, as in the screening assessments, includes some hypothetical elements, namely the hypothetical human receptor (
The Fisher scenario involves an individual who regularly consumes fish caught in freshwater lakes in the vicinity of the source of interest over the course of a 70-year lifetime. Since the Fisher scenario did not pass the screening, we evaluated risks and/or hazards from the one lake that was fished in the screening assessment, with the same adjustments to fish ingestion rates as used in the screening according to lake acreage and its assumed impact on fish productivity. The refined multipathway assessment produced an HQ of 0.6 for mercury for the three facilities assessed. This risk assessment represents the maximum hazard for mercury through fish consumption for the source category and, with an HQ less than 1, is below the level of concern for exposure to emissions from these sources.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of lead, we compared modeled hourly lead concentrations to the secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 μg/m
As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category for the following six pollutants: Mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), arsenic, cadmium, lead, D/F, and HCl. In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), cadmium and arsenic emissions had no exceedances of any ecological benchmarks evaluated. D/F and methyl mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for surface soil. Divalent mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for sediment and surface soil. A Tier 2 screening analysis was performed for D/F, divalent mercury, and methyl mercury emissions. In the Tier 2 screening analysis, D/F emissions had no exceedances of any ecological benchmarks evaluated. Divalent mercury emissions from six facilities exceeded the Tier 2 screen for a threshold level sediment benchmark by a maximum screening value of 2. The divalent mercury probable-effects benchmark for sediment was not exceeded. Methyl mercury emissions from two facilities exceeded the Tier 2 screen for a NOAEL surface soil benchmark for avian ground insectivores (woodcock) by a maximum screening value of 2. Other surface soil benchmarks for methyl mercury were not exceeded. Given the low Tier 2 maximum screening values of 2 for divalent mercury and methyl mercury, and the fact that only the most protective benchmarks were exceeded, a Tier 3 environmental risk screen was not conducted for this source category.
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that, of the 91 facilities, 16 facilities have a facility-wide cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million (refer to Table 3). The maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 70-in-1 million, mainly driven by arsenic and chromium (VI) emissions from construction activities involving the hauling of sand and gravel from the stone quarrying process. The next highest facility-wide cancer risk is 8-in-1 million.
The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 50 years. Approximately 20,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million from exposure to whole facility emissions from 16 facilities in the source category. Approximately 700 people are estimated to have cancer risk greater than 10-in-1 million from exposure to whole facility emissions from one facility in the source category.
The maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI is estimated to be equal to 1, mainly driven by emissions of HCl from a drying operation routed through the long kiln.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and non-cancer risks from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities identified as having the highest risks. The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses are included in a technical report,
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual emission levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.
The results of the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately 130 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk population in each demographic group (except for White, Native American, and Hispanic) are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide percentages. The specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population potentially impacted by Portland cement emissions is greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the following
As noted in section II.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using “a two-step standard-setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
The inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category is 1-in-1 million based on actual emissions. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 100 years, based on actual emissions. Approximately 130 people are exposed to actual emissions resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We estimate that, for allowable emissions, the inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in this source category is up to 4-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.02 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 50 years, based on allowable emissions. Based on allowable emissions, approximately 20,000 people could be exposed to emissions resulting in an increased cancer risk of up to 1-in-1 million, and about 690 people to an increased cancer risk of up to 10-in-1 million.
The Agency estimates that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from inhalation exposure is less than 1 due to actual emissions, and up to 1 due to allowable emissions. The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts from worst-case 1-hour emissions indicates that no HAP exceed an HQ value of 1.
Based on the results of the multipathway cancer screening analyses of arsenic and dioxin emissions, we conclude that the cancer risk from ingestion exposure to the individual most exposed is less than 1-in-1 million for arsenic and, based on a Tier 3 analysis, less than 20-in-1 million for dioxins. Based on the Tier 1 multipathway screening analysis of cadmium emissions and the refined site-specific multipathway analysis of mercury emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual emissions.
In determining whether risk is acceptable, the EPA considered all available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. The results indicate that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are significantly less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive limit of acceptability. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 due to actual emissions and up to 1 due to allowable emissions, and our refined multipathway analysis indicates that noncancer ingestion risks also are less than 1. Finally, the evaluation of acute noncancer risks was very conservative and showed that acute risks are below a level of concern.
Taking into account this information, we propose that the risk remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standards for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry is acceptable.
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category are acceptable, for allowable emissions, the inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in this source category is up to 4-in-1 million, with approximately 2,000 individuals estimated to be exposed to emissions resulting in an increased cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or greater. In addition, based on the Tier 3 multipathway screening analysis, dioxin emissions from the MIR facility could pose a risk of up to 20-in-1 million. Thus, we considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition to considering all of the health risks and other health information considered in the risk acceptability determination, in the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in this source category to further reduce the risks due to emissions of HAP.
Our inhalation risk analysis indicates very low potential for risk from the facilities in the source category based upon actual emissions at 1-in-1 million, and just slightly higher risks based upon allowable emissions at 4-in-1 million. Therefore, very little reduction in inhalation risks could be realized regardless of the availability of control options. As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to determine if the standard provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. The HAP risk drivers contributing to the inhalation MIR in excess of 1-in-1 million for 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL facilities include primarily the gaseous organic HAP: Formaldehyde, benzene, naphthalene, and acetaldehyde. More than 62 percent of the mass emissions of these compounds originate from kiln operations.
The following paragraphs provide our analyses of HAP-reducing measures that we considered in our ample margin of safety analysis. For each option, we considered feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and health information in determining whether to revise standards in order to provide an ample margin of safety.
The first technology we evaluated in our ample margin of safety analysis is a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). To assess the costs associated with RTOs, we relied on our beyond-the-floor (BTF) analysis documented in the May 6, 2009, Portland Cement NESHAP proposal (74 FR 21136). In that proposal, we assessed the potential for further reductions in THC and organic HAP emissions beyond the reductions achieved by activated carbon injection (ACI) (controlling mercury and THC emissions), the typical kiln controls used in the industry. To achieve further reductions in THC, a kiln would likely require additional controls, such as RTO. It was expected that RTO would only offer an additional 50-percent removal efficiency, due to the reduced
Exposure to dioxin emissions from the MIR facility were found to pose a non-inhalation MIR of less than 20-in-1 million, and possibly greater than 1-in-1 million. Technologies evaluated included the use of ACI with wet scrubbers to help control D/F emissions. For the March 24, 1998, proposal (63 FR 14182), we performed a BTF analysis that considered the MACT floor for D/F emissions controls to be a reduction of the kiln exhaust gas stream temperature at the PM control device inlet to 400 degrees Fahrenheit (63 FR 14200). An ACI system was considered as a potential BTF option. Total annual costs were estimated to be $426,000 to $3.3 million per kiln. The Agency determined that, based on the additional costs and the level of D/F emissions reduction achievable, the BTF costs were not justified (63 FR 14199-14201). We do not consider the use of ACI system to be cost effective for the industry to use to reduce D/F emissions, and would have little effect on the source category risks.
Our multipathway screening analysis results did not necessarily indicate any risks from mercury emissions, but we have also performed an evaluation of mercury emissions controls. In the May 6, 2009, BTF analysis, it was estimated for a typical 1.2 million tpy kiln, the addition of a halogenated carbon injection system would result in a 3.0 lb/year reduction in mercury at a cost of $1.25 million/year and a cost effectiveness of $420,000/lb of mercury removed. If the halogenated carbon injection system effectiveness is reduced due to a low level of mercury entering the system, 2.3 lb/year of mercury would be removed at a cost effectiveness of $540,000/lb of mercury removed (74 FR 21149). We do not consider the use of halogenated carbon injection system to be cost effective for the industry to use to reduce mercury emissions, and would have little effect on the low risks identified for this source category.
The cost-effectiveness values for further reduction of organic HAP, as referenced herein, are significantly higher than values in other NESHAP we have historically rejected for not being cost effective for organic HAP. As examples of determinations made historically, refer to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production (August 15, 2014, 79 FR 48078), the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins (April 21, 2011, 77 FR 22579), and the National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (December 21, 2006, 71 FR 76605). We also determined that further reduction of dioxin emissions would not be cost effective. Due to the low level of current risk, the minimal risk reductions that could be achieved with the various control options that we evaluated, and the substantial costs associated with additional control options, we are proposing that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety.
Based on the results of our environmental risk screening assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse environmental effect from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category. We are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
Control devices typically used to minimize emissions at Portland cement manufacturing industry facilities include fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP) for control of PM from kilns; fabric filters for the control of PM from clinker coolers and raw material handling operations; wet scrubbers or dry lime injection for control of HCl, and ACI, wet scrubbers, or both for the control of mercury, D/F, and THC. At least one kiln has controlled THC using a wet scrubber followed by an RTO. Process changes used at some facilities to reduce HAP emissions include dust shuttling to reduce mercury emissions and raw material substitution to reduce organic HAP emissions. The add-on controls and process changes used by a facility to comply with the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL emission standards are highly site specific because of factors such as variations in the HAP content of raw materials and fuels, availability of alternative raw materials and fuels, and kiln characteristics (such as age and type of kiln). In addition, new or reconstructed kilns must also comply with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Cement Manufacturing (40 CFR part 60, subpart F). The NSPS sets limits for emissions of PM, nitrogen oxides (NO
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is the process of adding ammonia or urea in the presence of a catalyst to selectively reduce NO
Since then, SCR has been installed on two cement kilns in the U.S. The two installations in the U.S. started operation in 2016 (Holcim in Midlothian, Texas) and 2013 (Lafarge in Joppa, Illinois). Holcim controls THC through addition of SCR to Kiln 1 and an RTO to Kiln 2. The SCR system at Lafarge controls NO
Beyond its ability to reduce NO
Catalytic ceramic filter candles and catalytic filter bags are used to remove not only particulate, but may be used to remove other pollutants such as D/F, THC, non-D/F organic HAP, carbon monoxide (CO), and NO
FLSmidth received the first contract for removal of THC with ceramic catalytic filters at a U.S. cement kiln. They noted that the removal of THC with their ceramic catalytic filter system depends on the speciation of THC components, but that removal efficiencies of greater than 90 percent have been seen in testing for HAP THC pollutants. Tri-Mer Corp., a technology company specializing in advanced industrial air pollution control systems, claims to have fully commercialized a ceramic filter technology that is highly effective for emissions from cement kilns and other processes facing NESHAP and MACT compliance issues. Although no studies were identified in the literature documenting the performance of Tri-Mer's ceramic filter system, the company states that their catalyst filter system is highly efficient at removing PM, SO
Powdered activated carbon (PAC) for mercury control was first used in the U.S. for the incinerator (waste-to-energy) industry. Conventional PAC was expected to be used for mercury control for electrical power generation. However, conventional PAC mercury removal performance suffers in situations involving high-sulfur coal, which leads to high sulfur trioxide (SO
The Ash Grove facility in Durkee, Oregon, had the highest mercury emissions of any Portland cement manufacturing facility prior to promulgation of the cement NESHAP. To reach the NESHAP limit of 55 lbs mercury per million tons of clinker, Ash Grove installed a $20 million system for mercury capture. It consists of a baghouse with ACI. Dust collected in the baghouse is sent to an electric furnace where it is heated to 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which puts the mercury back into a gaseous state. The gaseous mercury moves into a cooling chamber where it is converted into liquid that is captured in a heat exchanger/condenser. The liquid mercury is then sold for use in electronic devices and other products.
Praxair has developed a technology of feeding a stream of hot oxygen into a cement kiln to lower emissions of CO and hydrocarbons. This technology involves oxidation of CO at the kiln inlet with oxygen enhanced combustion, and has been in commercial practice since 2014 at a kiln in Europe. It has not been installed on any cement kiln in the U.S. Oxygen is injected in the riser with the goal of lowering NO
As discussed before, there are several technologies that can be effective in reducing emission from the cement kiln. However, most of these technologies have not been widely used in the industry so source category specific data on their long term performance and costs are lacking. Their performance is typically similar to technologies already employed or, in some cases, only marginally better. In the case of SCR, it had been noted that this might be an alternative to current THC controls. However, we note that SCR is most effective on non-dioxin organic HAP and is not effective on other hydrocarbons. The organic HAP portion of the 24 parts per million by volume THC limit is typically low and is near the actual detection limits for measurement. Therefore, even if SCR were more widely applied in the industry, the emissions impact on THC and organic HAP would be small.
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are proposing additional revisions, which include changes to clarify monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the correction of typographical errors. Our analyses and
We are proposing to correct a paragraph in the reporting requirements that mistakenly requires that affected sources report their 30-operating day rolling average for D/F temperature monitoring. There are no 30-day operating rolling average temperature requirements pertaining to D/F in the rule. The removal of the reference to the D/F temperature monitoring system in 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9)(vi) is also consistent with the EPA's October 2016 rule guidance for the subpart LLL NESHAP. See
We are proposing to correct a provision that requires facility owners or operators to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln feed rates. Section 63.1350(d)(1)(ii) requires daily kiln feed rate records only if the facility derives their clinker production rates from the measured feed rate.
The EPA is proposing to clarify that the submittal dates for semiannual summary reports required under 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9) are 60 days after the end of the reporting period consistent with the Agency's statement in the October 2016 rule guidance for the subpart LLL NESHAP. In addition, the October 2016 rule guidance was revised in September 2017 to ensure it reflects the various changes proposed in this rule.
The EPA is proposing to resolve conflicting provisions that apply when an SO
We are proposing to clarify the requirement in section 63.1349(b)(1)(vi) which states that for each PM performance test, an owner or operator must conduct at least three separate test runs each while the mill is on and the mill is off. We are proposing that this provision only applies to kilns with inline raw mills, as inline raw mills are considered part of the kiln and can affect kiln PM emissions. It specifically would not apply to a kiln that does not have an inline raw mill or to a clinker cooler (unless the clinker cooler gases are combined with kiln exhaust and sent through an inline mill). As in these cases, the raw mill is a separate source from the kiln and has no effect on kiln or clinker cooler PM emissions.
We are proposing changes which affect the emission limits for D/F. Table 1 of 40 CFR 63.1343(b) lists the emission limits for D/F. The units of the emission limit are ng/dscm TEQ at 7-percent oxygen. The TEQ is developed by determining the mass of each congener measured during the performance test, then multiplying each congener by the toxic equivalency factor (TEF). After the TEQ is developed per congener, they are added to obtain the total TEQs. The TEFs were re-evaluated in 2005 by the World Health Organization—International Programme on Chemical Safety using a different scale of magnitude.
Finally, we are proposing to clarify the performance test requirements for certain sources. According to a stakeholder, compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL is required immediately upon startup and does not allow companies an operating window after periods of extended shutdown in order to assess compliance. The stakeholder states that extended shutdowns of existing kilns occur in the Portland cement manufacturing industry in the aftermath of economic downturns when companies have halted production at certain facilities. When the economy rebounds and sources are brought back on line, they must immediately comply with NESHAP and other CAA requirements for existing facilities. The stakeholder asserts that this mandatory compliance requirement does not account for the fact that owners or operators must start the facilities back up and run them for periods of time to determine whether any measures must be taken to come into compliance with updated NESHAP or other standards. In response, we are proposing to clarify the performance test requirements for affected sources that have been idle through one or more periods that required a performance test to demonstrate compliance. The proposed amendment would require any affected source that was unable to demonstrate compliance before the compliance date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated compliance, but was idled during the normal window for the next compliance test, to demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits by conducting their performance using the test methods and procedures in 40 CFR 63.1349 and 63.7. Per 40 CFR 63.7, the necessary performance tests would need to be completed within 180 days of the date that compliance must be demonstrated.
Because these amendments only provide corrections and clarifications to the current rule and do not impose new requirements on the industry, we are proposing that these amendments become effective upon promulgation of the final rule.
The recent amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP have included rule updates, addressing electronic reporting requirements, and changes in policies regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Because we are proposing no new requirements or controls in this RTR, no Portland cement manufacturing facilities are adversely impacted by these proposed revisions. In fact, the impacts to the Portland cement manufacturing industry from this proposal will be minimal and potentially positive.
In this proposal, we recommend no new emission limits and require no additional controls; therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as a result of the proposed amendments.
As previously stated, recent amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP have addressed electronic reporting and changes in policies regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Additionally, the
No economic impacts are expected as a result of the proposed amendments.
While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of HAP, this action, if finalized, would result in improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the RTR Web site at
If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any “improved” data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR Web site, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442 (through the method described in the
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility. We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft® Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft® Access file. These files are provided on the RTR Web site at
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0416. This action does not change the information collection requirements.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. We estimate that three of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are small entities and comprise three plants. After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on small entities, we have concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is aware of one tribally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL that will be subject to this proposed action. However, the provisions of this proposed rule are not expected to impose new or substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments since the provisions in this proposed action are clarifying and correcting monitoring and testing requirements and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This proposed action also provides clarification for owners and operators on bringing new or previously furloughed kilns back on line. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of this preamble.
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(3)
(iv) * * * Compliance is demonstrated if the system is maintained within ±5 percent accuracy during the performance test determined in accordance with the procedures and criteria submitted for review in your monitoring plan required in § 63.1350(p).
(4) * * *
(ii)
(7) * * *
(ii) Perform required emission monitoring and testing of the kiln exhaust prior to the reintroduction of the coal mill exhaust, and also testing the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill. All emissions must be added together for all emission points, and must not exceed the limit per each pollutant as listed in § 63.1343(b).
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
(4)
(5)
The revisions read as follows:
(b)(1) * * *
(vi) For each performance test, conduct at least three separate test runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to collect a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for determining compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the time weighted average of the results from three consecutive runs, including applicable sources as required by paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of this section, to determine compliance. You need not determine the particulate matter collected in the impingers “back half” of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination of the “back half” for other purposes. For kilns with inline raw mills, testing must be conducted while the raw mill is on and while the raw mill is off. If the exhaust streams of a kiln with an inline raw mill and a clinker cooler are comingled, then the comingled exhaust stream must be tested with the raw mill on and the raw mill off.
(3) * * *
(iv) The run average temperature must be calculated for each run, and the average of the run average temperatures must be determined and included in the performance test report and will determine the applicable temperature limit in accordance with § 63.1346(b).
(4) * * *
(i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you must operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements in § 63.1350(i). For the purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 50 to 60 ppmvw and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
(6) * * *
(i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of appendix A to this part unless you have installed a CEMS that meets the requirements § 63.1350(l)(1). For kilns with inline raw mills, testing must be conducted for the raw mill on and raw mill off conditions.
(7) * * *
(viii) * * *
(A) Determine the THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the average of your corresponding three total organic HAP compliance test runs, using Equation 12.
(8) * * *
(vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (“mill on”) and while the raw mill is not operating (“mill off”). Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the SO
(vii) * * *
(B) Determine your SO
(d) [Reserved]
The revisions read as follows:
(g)
(4) Every hour, report the calculated rolling three-hour average temperature using the average of 180 successive one-minute average temperatures. See S63.1349(b)(3).
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Each hour, calculate the three-hour rolling average of the selected parameter value for the previous 3 hours of process operation using all of the one-minute data available (
(j)
(k) * * *
(2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, you must use one of the three options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(ii) Quality assure any data above the span value by proving instrument linearity beyond the span value established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Conduct a weekly “above span linearity” calibration challenge of the monitoring system using a reference gas with a certified value greater than your highest expected hourly concentration or greater than 75 percent of the highest measured hourly concentration. The “above span” reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 and must be introduced to the measurement system at the probe. Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The “above span linearity” challenge is successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS falls within 10 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the Hg CEMS during the above span linearity challenge exceeds ±10 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, the monitoring system must be evaluated and repaired and a new “above span linearity” challenge met before returning the Hg CEMS to service, or data above span from the Hg CEMS must be subject to the quality assurance procedures established in paragraph (k)(2)(iii) of this section. In this manner all hourly average values exceeding the span value measured by the Hg CEMS during the week following the above span linearity challenge when the CEMS response exceeds ±20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas must be normalized using Equation 22.
(iii) Quality assure any data above the span value established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any time two consecutive one-hour average measured concentrations of Hg exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours before or after, introduce a higher, “above span” Hg reference gas standard to the Hg CEMS. The “above span” reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1, must target a concentration level between 50 and 150 percent of the highest expected hourly concentration measured during the period of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. While this target represents a desired concentration range that is not always achievable in practice, it is expected that the intent to meet this range is demonstrated by the value of the reference gas. Expected values may include “above span” calibrations done before or after the above span measurement period. Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The “above span” calibration is successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, then you must normalize the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour period preceding or following the “above span” calibration for reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as shown in equation 22. Only one “above span” calibration is needed per 24 hour period.
(5) * * *
(ii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of mercury in lb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts by using the mercury hourly emissions rate and the exhaust gas flow rate to calculate hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr.
(l) * * *
(1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit by operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance Specification 15 (PS 15) or PS 18 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, or,
(3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, and you choose to monitor SO
(i) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after you exceed the established SO
(ii) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the next compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the SO
(b) * * *
(9) The owner or operator shall submit a summary report semiannually within 60 days of the reporting period to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(vi) For each PM CPMS, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS, or Hg sorbent trap monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must report all of the calculated 30-operating day rolling average values derived from the CPMS, CEMS, CMS, or Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems.
(viii) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs (b)(9)(viii)(A) and (B) of this section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. All reports must be signed by a responsible official.
(A) The initial performance test data as recorded under § 63.1349(a).
(B) The values for the site-specific operating limits or parameters established pursuant to § 63.1349(b)(1), (3), (6), (7), and (8), as applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how the operating parameters were established during the initial performance test.
(C) As of December 31, 2011, and within 60 days after the date of completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in § 63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except opacity data, to the EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see
(10) If the total continuous monitoring system downtime for any CEM or any CMS for the reporting period is 10 percent or greater of the total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator shall submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report along with the summary report.
(c) Reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a malfunction. For each failure to meet a standard or emissions limit caused by a malfunction at an affected source, you must report the failure in the semi-annual compliance report required by § 63.1354(b)(9). The report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number of events in the reporting period. The report must list for each event the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the amount of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.1348(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
(e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates according to the clinker production monitoring requirements in § 63.1350(d).
| 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 |